Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [Lords].

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

TRADE

ADDRESS FOR RETURN,

"of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for the years 1979 and 1980."—[Mr. Nott.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers are intending to discuss widening the spheres of territory covered by the Alliance to include areas outside Western Europe.

The Under-Secretary of State for Deence for the Army (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf for his absence this afternoon. He is today attending the NATO Defence Planning Committee's regular spring ministerial session in Brussels. NATO consults on all matters affecting Western security interests and is keenly aware of the need to consider the global nature of the threat to Western peace and security. There are, however, no plans to extend the area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty.

Mr. Latham: As the Alliance has successfully contained the Soviet Union since

it was formed in Europe, and as the threat may now be said to be in other areas, such as the Middle East, is it not time to consider whether the Alliance, collectively, should give territorial guarantees, at least to friendly Powers, where the direct interests of the West would be fatally affected if those countries were invaded?

Mr. Hayhoe: Certainly the matter can be considered, and of course all matters affecting Western security will be under consideration.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Wilkinson: Notwithstanding the fact that there is no intention at present to change the boundaries of the Alliance, will the Government give much more active consideration to creating air and naval forces that are flexible enough to intervene wherever they may be required? Battle tanks in Germany are all very well, but they are best suited to meeting the armoured threat in Central Europe.

Mr. Hayhoe: We intend to maintain the capability of our forces to operate flexibly worldwide. However, that does not entail, or require, the creation of a specific new force. If my hon. Friend refers to paragraph 409 of the White Paper he will see that matter spelt out. No doubt these matters will be considered more widely by the partners in the Alliance, who are meeting in Brussels.

Mr. Rodgers: Quite apart from the question of cost, which must be of great concern to the House, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be extremely cautious about extending the sphere of operations of NATO? NATO has had a remarkably stabilising effect in Europe for 30 years, and for that reason it is important not to undermine that stability in any way by requiring members of NATO to be involved in spheres of operation and interest outside the NATO area.

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree about the need not to undermine the unity of the Alliance, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look behind him and argue with his colleagues in support of that thesis.

Mr. Buck: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is need for caution. However, does he agree that there is


probably a need for NATO to be more closely allied, for example, to Australian and New Zealand forces—and other forces—which clearly represent and defend free democratic societies?

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that the United Kingdom is a valuable bridge, in that we maintain cordial co-operation with the armed forces and Governments of the countries to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister seen the report on page 7 of The Guardian today, which states that Mr. Harold Brown said, in an interview in Il Tempo in Italy, that it was part of NATO's responsibility to patrol—with Japan, incidentally—the Persian Gulf because the United States intended to spend more money in South-East Asia? Do the Government know anything about that report?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what controls against accidental launch will be fitted to the cruise missile system which is to be deployed in the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The cruise missiles to be deployed in this country are designed to most stringent safety and security standards to preclude accidental launch or other misuse.

Mr. Allaun: Is not it a fact that eight out of 10 of the 20 tests by Boeing and General Dynamics went seriously astray? If one of the 160 missiles is launched by accident against a Russian city, will that not result in retaliation against one or many of our own cities, and perhaps the lot?

Mr. Pattie: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about a weapon system which is some years from deployment. Mishaps of the type to which he refers occur at this stage in the development of any weapon system. Therefore, no particular adverse deductions should be drawn.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that I visited the production plant to see the cruise missile? Does he accept that it is technically and inherently a much safer system than the manned aircraft which at present carry a nuclear load? Will my hon. Friend consider inviting the Americans to set out in simple terms why the system is so much safer than those that are at present available?

Mr. Pattie: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". I shall certainly bear his question in mind.

Mr. Cryer: How can the Minister say anything about the testing and performance of cruise missiles when, in answer to a written question that I tabled asking for specific details about testing, he said that it was purely a matter for the United States Government? Do the Government have any information about cruise missiles? If not, why not? If they have the information, why cannot they reveal it to hon. Members? Alternatively, are we simply being trampled on by America? Are the missiles being imposed upon us without our having a right of consultation or veto?

Mr. Pattie: The United States Government have to be responsible for the operational effectiveness of the system, which is their system. The United States would not deploy a system unless it was satisfied that it would work.

Educational Allowances

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum paid to (a) officers, and (b) others ranks in educational allowances in the year 1979–80; and what is the average grossed up value of an allowance in each category.

Mr. Hayhoe: The total sum paid in educational allowances in the year 1979–80 was £31·2 million, including some £9 million to cover claimants' tax liability. Of this sum, £21·7 million was paid to officers and £9·5 million to other ranks. Following a rate increase from April 1980, the average grossed value of an allowance is approximately £2,200 to an officer and £1,900 to an other rank.

Mr. Price: Are the figures taken into account when Forces pay is being considered? Is the intention to continue to


index them fully for inflation at a time when the State education system is being cut by 9 per cent?

Mr. Hayhoe: The figures are taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Indeed, proposals for some improvement in the boarding school allowance are under consideration by that body.

Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the educational allowance makes an important contribution to the families of all ranks? Is he satisfied with the manner in which the allowance is grossed up for tax purposes, because that can have an unfair result in some cases? If he is not satisfied, will he make a warlike approach to his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Hayhoe: The grossing up is open to some criticism. Representations have been made on behalf of people who believe that they are adversely affected. In relation to the contribution that the boarding allowance makes to members of the Army generally, it is worth noting that about 35 per cent. of those involved are other ranks, compared with only 26 per cent. under the last Government three years ago.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hayhoe: There are currently 12 major units of the regular Army in Northern Ireland, together with a variety of supporting elements and members of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. There are also 11 battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The role of the Armed Forces is to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend tell the House more about the local reorganisation of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Since its value lies primarily in its local roots, why for example, close the UDR camp at Loughgall in such a dangerous area?

Mr. Hayhoe: Some closures have been decided by the local commanders in order to improve efficiency. Representations are

being made about the proposals, and of course they will be considered.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Government's intention is to defeat terrorism, will my hon. Friend tell the House why we do not take more positive action in Ulster, through specialist forces, along the lines of the action that we took at Princes Gate to defeat terrorism?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should cast even a scintilla of doubt upon the Government's determination to fight terrorism. At a time when so much publicity has been given to the SAS in this country and to the monitoring force in Rhodesia, I reiterate my unbounded admiration for all those serving in Northern Ireland and for the contribution that they make.

Mr. Stanbrook: Would it be possible so to increase the size of the UDR in Northern Ireland as to take over a greater proportion and share of our military needs there?

Mr. Hayhoe: A small increase in the permanent cadre of the Ulster Defence Regiment has been agreed recently, and it is increasing its contribution in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Concannon: I admit that the primary reason for setting up the UDR was to obtain local knowledge in the local areas, and I accept that there might be a case for rationalisation. However, can the Minister say something more about the position of the regular battalions? Have they had the desired effect on the roulement of troops from Germany? Has he slackened that apace?

Mr. Hayhoe: The redeployments that have been made and the reduction in the size of our forces in Northern Ireland have reduced the amount of overstretch. Overall, it has been a beneficial move.

European Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will investigate the setting up of a European independent nuclear deterrent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): No, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 28 April.

Mr. Marlow: I accept that it is desirable that we should continue to benefit from the American nuclear umbrella, and therefore that we should encourage its continuance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the final decision does not rest with us? Is it not possible at least that, should the Russians put a foot in Western Germany, the Americans would not be prepared to swap their cities for Russian cities on the basis of defending Europe? Therefore, would it not be prudent to get together with our European partners, particularly the French and Germans, with a view to setting up an independent European nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Speed: No. The non-proliferation treaty does not allow other European countries which do not already possess them to have control over nuclear weapons. I am sure that the security of the Western Alliance rests on our determination jointly to resist aggression in a collective way. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Heffer: Has not the time come for the Government, and everybody else, to work towards a European nuclear-free zone, for the people actively to campaign for that and to say clearly that it is time that Britain got rid if its nuclear weapons?

Mr. Speed: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Europe includes the Soviet Union.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the enormous cost of the Polaris replacement if it is to be based on the United States Trident submarine-launched system, does my hon. Friend exclude from his consideration of options for the Polaris successor a land-based missile to be developed jointly by France, Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany?

Mr. Speed: All options for the Polaris successor are still open, and discussions are taking place on the question of a launcher for the appropriate missile. I remind my hon. Friend that the non-proliferation treaty does not allow other European countries to have control over nuclear weapons. They are debarred from that. The Federal German Republic has no wish to have such control, and there is no indication that France wishes joint control. I reiterate that the security

of the Western Alliance is an important factor in our standing together. I do not believe that it would help NATO or the Alliance to follow the course that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Because the United State of America and the Soviet Union possess enough nuclear weapons to blow up the planet 17 times, would it not be better to concentrate on preventing the proliferation of those weapons and reducing the existing nuclear stock?

Mr. Speed: Various discussions have taken place over the past two years on that matter. In the debate in January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army had a great deal to say about the initiatives taken by the West along those lines.

Air Defence (Radar Systems)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a decision to be reached on the radar systems required for the United Kingdom air defence ground environment.

Mr. Pattie: It is hoped to award the contract for the first two radars very shortly.

Mr. Onslow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is doing everything possible to support the claims of British contenders for the award? Will he confirm also that, because the American Westinghouse Corporation is one of the foreign contenders, he will make sure that everybody involved in the decision knows that in the case of the CAA radar competition the claims put forward by Westinghouse salesmen were not borne out by experience and were found to be far in excess of the capacity of their equipment?

Mr. Pattie: I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Defence will give the same response as was given by the CAA to any claims by Westinghouse salesmen that are shown to be bogus. It would be as well for British contractors, having made a sensible assessment of the likely market share that they could achieve, to base their costings on achieving such a share, rather than to do what they do too often now, which it to base their costings on a small order from the


Ministry of Defence, thereby losing world markets.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that an order to British companies could have world-wide effects in export markets? The CA A has already awarded its contracts to a Dutch-based company, Phillips, with only a small proportion of work returning to this country. This is a vital issue, and many employees in my constituency and elsewhere are concerned that the order should go to a British company.

Mr. Pattie: In the case of the CAA radars, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade have to be aware of the likely impact on export markets. When the hon. Gentleman analyses the CAA radar decision he will find that 56 per cent. of that work is to come to the United Kingdom.

West Germany

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when last he met the Chiefs of Staff to discuss the present security position in West Germany in relation to Her Majesty's Forces stationed there.

Mr. Hayhoe: The physical security of Her Majesty's Forces' bases and of Service men in West Germany is a matter for the commanders on the spot, under the guidance of a British Forces Germany joint service security committee. I am satisfied that, in the wake of recent terrorist attacks there, all reasonable measures have been taken to counter this threat.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that somewhat staid reply. If there were an outbreak of conventional war, how long would it take the Soviet Union and its satellite Eastern bloc forces to come through the Federal Republic, Belgium and the Netherlands to the North Sea? Will he say how our forces and equipment match the comparable forces of the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union? Does he think that there are sufficient supplies, stores and spares to sustain the BAOR?

Mr. Hayhoe: In the unlikely event of an attack as described by my hon. Friend, I am certain that British Forces, and other forces of the Alliance, would give a very

good account of themselves and would not permit Soviet forces to get through to the North Sea. In those circumstances, I think that my hon. Friend's question is based on a false premise.

Mr. Marlow: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level and quality of formation training in the BAOR?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is improving as a result of the new arrangements that have been made for the deployment of forces in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I am not entirely satisfied, and I hope that further improvements can be made.

Middle East

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when next he expects to meet his NATO counterparts to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Hayhoe: As I explained earlier, my right hon. Friend is meeting NATO Defence Ministers now, and they will be discussing a range of issues relating to Western security.

Mr. Goodlad: Does my hon. Friend accept that the purposes for which NATO exists can now be served only by maintaining a credible capability in areas formerly covered by defunct alliances, such as CENTO? Is he aware that we are encouraged by reports in this morning's newspapers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State encouraged our NATO Allies to support the Pentagon's contingency plans to divert troops formerly earmarked for support in Europe?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is true that the interests of the West generally, and of the developing world, are bound up with the position in the Middle East and in the Gulf. Perhaps it could be argued that the withdrawals that took place in the past contributed to the instability in that area. As regards action by the Government, I explained in answer to an earlier question that we are seeking greater flexibility in our ability to respond outside the NATO area.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the Minister draw the attention of his NATO partners to reports that the United States is planning to build new bases, with 50,000 troops, in Egypt? Will he say whether he thinks that that will stabilise or destabilise the position in the Middle East?

Mr. Hayhoe: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on newspaper reports about the actions of our allies. I wish to make it clear that we should do everything that we can to maintain the present close relationship with our American allies. We owe them our best counsel, and we owe them also our loyal support.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend say whether the sovereign base areas in Cyprus are used, or could be used, by NATO?

Mr. Hayhoe: The sovereign base areas in Cyprus are used by British Forces. I should need notice to say whether there would be any restraints upon their being used by NATO forces under any conditions.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the last thing that the Middle East needs in the present circumstances is a massive infusion of NATO forces? Is he further aware that the NATO treaty does not extend to that part of the world?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is no proposal at the present time for NATO forces to be deployed in the Middle East.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will clarify the precise powers of Her Majesty's Government over the release of cruise missiles based in East Anglia, in relation to the powers of the United States Government, specifying whether, in the circumstances of a nuclear war, arrangements have been made for consultation with the Americans on the use of cruise missiles in the few minutes available; and whether Her Majesty's Government will have at every stage of any nuclear confrontation, the inalienable, unqualified and unconditional right of veto over their use.

Mr. Pattie: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on 29 April.

Mr. Dalyell: In that reply there was a reference to joint decision. Does "joint decision" in that context mean dual key control of the missiles?

Mr. Pattie: No.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Quite apart from the need for the British Prime Minister to give consent by voice and by Telex before any nuclear weapons are used from this country, is it not a fact that United Kingdom authorities control the gas, water, electricity and traffic on which all American bases in Britain operate? Therefore, it is not possible for the Americans to operate independently out of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pattie: What my hon. Friend says is, of course, correct. It might be worth adding that "joint decision" means exactly what it says—not consultation, but decision.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Can the cruise missile be defused after it has been launched? Would it not be much safer for Britain and the world if nuclear weapons were confined to the big two—America and Russia?

Mr. Pattie: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The answer to the second part of his question is that there is a major difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and the Government.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister said that the Americans would not install missiles that did not work. Yet apparently the Government have no information on whether they work. Is it not true that it was the equipment that failed in the Iranian incident? Is it not true also that the Government were not informed? Is it not pathetic for any hon. Member to suggest that we might have some sort of control by cutting off the water or the gas if the Americans propose to use cruise missiles?

Mr. Pattie: I think that my hon. Friend was making a perfectly legitimate point, as he did in his first question to me, when he drew attention to the issue of joint decision and joint consultation. I think that it is one of the points that have been exercising the minds of Labour Members for some time.

Afghanistan (Russian Invasion)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues about the defence implications upon the Alliance of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Mr. Hayhoe: NATO has maintained close consultation about the situation in South West Asia following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As I have indicated, tomorrow, in Brussels, Alliance Foreign Ministers will be joining Defence Ministers in the Defence Planning Committee to discuss the implications for NATO's defence planning of events in Arghanistan. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend will, of course, be present

Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed answer. What consideration has been given to the position of Turkey in the soft underbelly of Europe, and also to the change of prioritisation, to coin a phrase, in relation to Cyprus?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that it would be proper for me to speculate on the detailed discussions that will take place, but I am sure that the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend will be subsumed in those discussions.

Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government had any information about the statement by Mr. Harold Brown that NATO and Japan should patrol the Gulf? I have it here in black and white, on page 7 of today's paper, and the Minister ought to have been briefed on it by his Department.

Mr. Hayhoe: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question I shall, of course, check. However, I think that the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I have little doubt that if the report covers discussions that are likely to take place in Brussels, my right hon. Friends will be informed about those matters.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has brought Soviet imperialism to within 300 miles of the Straits of Hormuz, are the Government and NATO satisfied that the Sultanate of Oman has enough minesweepers, and whatever else is required, for the security and surveillance of that important waterway?

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend had hoped to visit Oman a short time ago, but, alas, that had to be postponed. I have little doubt that when, as it is hoped, that visit is again set up, these matters will be discussed.

Hovercraft (Minelaying and Minesweeping)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates reaching a conclusion about the role of hovercraft in minelaying and minesweeping.

Mr. Speed: Our trials have shown that hovercraft could have useful potential in the minesweeping role. The Royal Navy's immediate needs in this respect are, however, being catered for by the continuing introduction of the dual role Hunt class mine countermeasures vessels, so it is unlikely that hovercraft would be introduced before the end of the 1980s. We have also found the hovercraft to have potential in the minelaying role, because of its high speed. Its possible use in this field is currently being considered as part of a more general review of our minelaying capability.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister accept that those trials have been going on for a long time? Surely a decision ought to be taken now. If not, I suggest that the capabilities of manufacturing such craft will be lost. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be more cost-effective to use hovercraft than to introduce the Brecon class minesweepers, which each cost upwards of £20 million?

Mr. Speed: I am afraid that the problem relates to the equipment that would have to be fitted to the hovercraft for a minehunting role. We do not yet have equipment that is satisfactory at the high speeds at which hovercraft operate. That is one of the major limiting factors. However, there are some encouraging developments on the minelaying side, and they are presently being pursued by the hovercraft trials unit.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the countries which border the Straits of Hormuz have shown any interest in the experiments which are taking place, perhaps with a view to using hovercraft for minelaying and minesweeping purposes?

Mr. Speed: There is a lot of interest in hovercraft, particularly in relation to minehunting—not minesweeping. Hovercraft are not very effective for mine-sweeping, because they are not effective at low speeds. The drawback relates to


the equipment that must be fitted to the hovercraft for minehunting at high speeds. I am sure that there will be a considerable interest once those problems have been solved.

Mr. Duffy: In view of the disturbing intensification of the mining threat and the relative slowness of the Hunt class coming into service, as well as its expense, does the Minister agree that he ought to reconsider more urgently than the timetable that he has in mind envisages the possible introduction of hovercraft for at least one of the roles that he has mentioned?

Mr. Speed: There is a possibility with regard to minelaying, but I stress again that in relation to minehunting—the hon. Gentleman will know that limitation—there is a technical problem, which we are doing our best to solve.

Ulster Defence Regiment

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider instituting a special medal for those members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have given 10 years' continuous service.

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, this is under active consideration.

Mr. Thorne: I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging remarks. Can he give any indication of the timetable?

Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that an announcement can be made soon. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of hon. Members when I say that there is a high regard for the work carried out by the UDR. Its tenth anniversary has been marked in a number of ways, and I know that it would be widely welcomed if there were a positive decision on the question of medals.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: While confirming all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the UDR and its 10-year record, will he bear in mind in all decisions regarding the force the importance of treating it as far as possible as an integral part and unit of the Army?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes.

Mr. Robert Atkins: When will my hon. Friend make a statement about the award of a special medal to those who served in Zimbabwe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a separate question altogether.

Medium-range Nuclear Weapons (United Kingdom Bases)

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now ready to announce where updated United States medium-range nuclear weapons will be sited in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pattie: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on this during the defence debate on 28 April.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people who live in areas where these sites may be located are extremely worried and concerned about them and about their own future, and believe that they should be consulted on whether the sites should be there? Is he further aware that they will be extremely concerned as a result of his answer to question No. 9 on dual control, especially bearing in mind the lack of consultation over the American rescue operation in Iran?

Mr. Pattie: As my right hon. Friend has previously indicated, we shall take the decision as soon as we possibly can. The appropriate level of consultation will be carried out. I do not think that the allegation or accusation can be made against the Government that in recent weeks that they have not done all that they possible could to make the maximum amount of information available on this and other related nuclear issues.

Mr. Onslow: As it is important that wherever the missiles are sited they should have adequate point defence provided by the Americans, can my hon. Friend say what progress has been made with regard to the purchase of Rapier by the United States Government.

Mr. Pattie: I can tell my hon. Friend that yesterday my right hon. Friend was handed a letter in Brussels from the United States Secretary for Defence requesting that we now proceed.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister says that maximum information has been made available, yet he failed to answer my question about the performance of the cruise missiles, either because he does not


know or because he is concealing information. That is the fact of the matter, and the Minister should acknowledge it. He should also provide facilities for the Cruise Missile Sites Bill—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may complete his question, but he must ask it.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Government give time for that Bill, instead of getting a Government Whip to oppose it when it comes up on a Friday?

Mr. Pattie: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that very soon, when we are ready to announce the decision, material will be available which, we hope, will be adequate both for the case for, and the operational performance of, this system.

Mr. Banks: From the point of view of protection and security, would it not be better if the location of the missile sites were not revealed?

Mr. Pattie: I think that that might be a little difficult to sustain in practice.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when next he will discuss the security of the Persian Gulf with Mr. Brown, the United States Defence Secretary.

Mr. Hayhoe: As I have indicated, my right hon. Friend is meeting Mr. Brown and other NATO Defence Ministers today at the ministerial meeting of the NATO Defence Planning Committee, and they will be discussing a wide range of world strategic issues.

Mr. Temple-Morris: May I reiterate that the Secretary of State's statement yesterday in Brussels of support for the United States in these difficult times is very welcome indeed? My hon. Friend has spoken of the need for flexibility to act outside Europe. Does he agree that the situation in the Persian Gulf area needs to be considered urgently and that the need for Western agreement soon is very necessary?

Mr. Hayhoe: Countering the Soviet threat in the Gulf in the first place is the responsibility of the local States. However, the United Kingdom and others in the Alliance can use their long-standing

ties with the region to help enhance the States' ability to defend their own interests. We welcome the determination of President Carter's Administration to deter and, if necessary, to counter any further Soviet encroachment in the Gulf and South-West Asia generally, which has been indicated by the establishment of the United States' rapid deployment force.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister think that the best way to win friends and influence people in the Persian Gulf is to take economic sanctions against them?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is not for me to comment on a Bill which, I gather, is to be considered later today.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the troubled state of the Persian Gulf makes extremely regrettable the decision taken by the previous Labour Government to withdraw our minimal forces from that area?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is widespread agreement that those force level changes have contributed to instability in the area.

Mr. Heffer: I draw the attention of the Minister to the article in today's edition of The Guardian, which indicates that Mr. Brown has made it clear that America will call on NATO and Japan to help to patrol the Gulf. Is that policy to be supported by Her Majesty's Government? Is it in line with the Government's clear statement that they are opposed to further force in dealing with Iran?

Mr. Hayhoe: As the hon. Gentleman's question is based upon a newspaper report and the speculation surrounding it, it is better to wait for my right hon. Friend's return from the NATO meeting. If the matter has been discussed at the meeting, I have no doubt that he will comment upon it.

Tornado Aircraft (Cruise Missiles)

Mr. Churchill: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the possibility of equipping Tornado with air-launched cruise missiles.

Mr. Pattie: Some outline studies have been made into the technical feasibility of equipping the Tornado GR1 aircraft with air-launched cruise missiles.

Mr. Churchill: Does my hon. Friend agree that with the estimated deployment by the Soviet Union against Western Europe by 1985 of about 250 SS20 missiles, and an equal number of Backfire bombers, there is an urgent requirement for a Vulcan replacement? Will the Government give top priority to considering equipping Tornado GR1s with air-launched cruise missiles, which would have not only the role of tactical attack against airfields in East Germany and Poland, but a longer range strategic capability?

Mr. Pattie: As my hon. Friend knows, the Vulcan operates in a long-range theatre nuclear role, carrying a free-fall nuclear bomb. It is felt in some quarters that an air-launched cruise missile released from a stand-off mode could be a more appropriate response to the needs of the next two decades. The question that my hon. Friend poses is largely a matter of resource.

Mr. Stoddart: Would it not be better if hon. Members asked questions that related to the reduction of armaments rather than to increases in armaments? Is not that what the world wants at present?

Mr. Pattie: It has been said many times from this Dispatch Box that the Government wish to achieve a sensible reciprocal disarmament programme. We have said that many times. No advantage will be gained by unilateral action.

Mr. Nelson: With the decision to phase out the V-bomber force, will we not fall back on the submarine-launched nuclear deterrent as our sole and principal strategic defence weapon? Will there not be an important air gap in the next few years? Is it not important for the Government to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) suggested, giving every consideration to arming the GR1 with the cruise missile?

Mr. Pattie: It is important for my hon. Friend to appreciate that the only strategic weapon that we have is the Polaris system. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), the Vulcan is deployed in a long-range theatre nuclear role. It is important not to confuse the two.

Naval Vessels and Marine Equipment (Overseas Sales)

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to assist British shipbuilders to sell naval vessels and British equipment manufacturers to sell marine equipment abroad.

Mr. Speed: The services of the Defence Sales Organisation, which is continually looking for opportunities to promote the sale of British naval vessels and marine equipment abroad, are fully available to all British shipbuilders and marine equipment manufacturers.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that our competitors in these matters, the Netherlands Royal Navy, has recently completed a major cruise lasting nearly a year, with senior ministers arriving at every port to try to sell the equipment? Is he aware that if his Department is to support British shipbuilders and marine equipment manufacturers, it must move up market?

Mr. Speed: I am aware of that. I shall visit Rotterdam to attend a major naval exposition in a fortnight's time to try to do the same.

Mr. Duffy: Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon other Departments, whose support is vital for any assistance of the type for which his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) calls that the end result of such assistance would be not only much-needed escort vessels, but much-needed shipbuilding jobs?

Mr. Speed: We are conscious of that fact.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr Goodlad: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Herr Hans de Koster, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the President of Gabon. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to persuade the secretary general of the TUC to call off the so-called day of action tomorrow? Although its failure may demonstrate a broad measure of support for Government policies, the holding of a political strike can only further damage the reputation and authority of the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I believe that the so-called day of action tomorrow will discredit the unions, diminish the pay packet and damage Britain. I hope that all those who believe in backing Britain will be at work tomorrow.

Mr. Foot: As, apparently, one of the right hon. Lady's objections to the day of action is that she is determined to sustain her existing policies, does she think that it would be a good idea if she had some success with those policies? She has not had any yet. Will she tell us when she thinks her Government will be able to get back to the level of inflation that we had when she took office?

The Prime Minister: The Government's policies are a matter for Parliament and not for the T.U.C.

Mr. David Steel: Even though it appears that the damage caused by tomorrow's events will not be as great as was originally intended, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is incumbent upon the leadership of every party to make it clear that whatever our disagreements with Government policies—they are fundamental in this instance—the places where they are debated are at the hustings and in the House? If the day ever came when the Government were pushed off course by inaction on the streets and in the factories it would be a black day for Britain.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be of great assistance to Britain if the Leader of the Opposition, or his Deputy, were to state where the Labour Party stands on these issues, rather than allowing it to be led by the nose by Mr. Runaway Murray?

The Prime Minister: From what they have said so far, it appears that they support the day of action, which I think is disgraceful.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now give the House her answer to the question that I put originally? It is one of the issues about which people have the right to demonstrate. Will she tell us when she thinks she will be able to return to the level of inflation that prevailed when she took office? If she will not give a straight answer to that queston, will she say when she will be able to return to the level of unemployment that prevailed when she took office? Will she go through the list? These are issues on which people will demonstrate throughout the country. Until she takes measures in this Parliament to stop the right of demonstration, they will have every right to do so.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to stand on the Government's record in their first year. At the end of this Parliament I shall be very happy to compare our record with that of the Opposition.

Mr. Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the intolerable pressures that some trade unions are exerting on those individuals who do not wish to take part in the day of action? Does not the Opposition's silence finally kill their claim to speak for individual rights and civil liberties?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware that the vast majority of trade unionists do not wish to stay away from work tomorrow. They feel very bitter, and are deeply resentful that they were not consulted about the T.U.C.'s advice.

Later—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the exchanges on this question, due to the amount of noise in the Chamber, I and, I suspect, a number of my hon. Friends were unable to hear the intervention of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in full, and since the point that he was on was a matter of considerable public importance, I wonder whether you could enlighten me as to what you heard him say? Did he say whether he was for or against the day of action?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was very clever to leave it until the end of his sentence.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave a short time ago.

Mr. Price: Would the Prime Minister like to muse on the fact that next year it will be 600 years since the Peasants' Revolt, and that preparations are in hand to celebrate that anniversary in Black-heath, in the London borough of Lewisham? Will she accept that it is an English tradition for people to show their disgust with their political masters, especially when they have been conned by them? Does she accept that this is a tradition of great antiquity, which should be respected?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be better to address our minds to the problems of the twentieth century.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be the legitimate aim of all trade union leaders to ensure that all their members can have five-star holidays? Are not the antics of the secretary general of the TUC designed to keep back the millions of trade unionists in this country? Would not the secretary general do better if he told them to stay at work tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: It is the Government's aim to enable people to raise their standards of living by going to work. They cannot raise their standards of living by not going to work.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) exactly how she will reduce inflation at a stroke, namely, by removing tobacco and possibly alcohol, from the retail price index? If she does that, does she realise that she will be accused of cooking the books again?

The Prime Minister: That proposal has been put forward by at any rate one hon. Member. Some people think that those items need not be included in the retail price index. I have no imediate proposals to change the retail price index.

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Pawsey: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the fact that the civil population of the United Kingdom is almost defenceless in the face of a conventional or a nuclear attack? Will she therefore give greater priority to an effective civil defence system for our country?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making very good progress with his review of civil defence. I hope that he will be in a position shortly to make a statement. We all want to do more. The amount that we can do will depend upon the resources available.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a 24-hour general strike is taking place in France, and that the French Government are not showing the hysteria that the Conservative Party has shown? Is it not clear that the day off, which will not be for everybody, will be no worse and no better than if we had a normal bank holiday? Is it not clear that the right hon. Lady was talking utter nonsense at the Perth Tory Party conference when she talked about our country losing its competitiveness because workers decided to take a day of action to show their displeasure at her policies.

The Prime Minister: We have already had two bank holidays this month. Surely that is enough, even for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider what advice I might give a constituent who came to see me last Saturday?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Get a new Member of Parliament.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he was a reluctant conscript into the National Graphical Association and that he received a rather peremptory letter from his union asking him to pay £6.20 a week towards a "dispute levy "? He is anxious not to pay that money. What would my right hon. Friend advise me to tell him?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend told his constituent that he had an excellent Member of Parliament. Assuming that the levy is correct according to the union's rules, that excellent Member of Parliament's advice would have been that if he did not wish to pay the amount he and his fellow union members should attend meetings until they manage to change the rules.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the right hon. Lady recall that a few answers ago, she confirmed that unemployment was the responsibility of the Government, not of the TUC? Did she mean that unemployment existed because the Government could no do anything about it, or that it existed as a result of deliberate Government policy?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly not the latter. The level of unemployment is partly dependent on the amount that employees take out in pay claims, and whether the company against which they make those claims and settlements can still afford to sell goods in competition with overseas companies.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every 10 white babies born in the United Kingdom, there is one coloured child? Is she aware that that proportion is increasing, and that even after recent measures, a sufficient number of people of different cultures come into Britain to populate a parliamentary constituency once every other year? Is she further aware that within a generation, the population of coloured people in Britain will double, and that whatever noises Opposition Members may make, it is a matter of public concern? Will she tell the House what plans the Government have to take account of the general public's proper concern?

The Prime Minister: I hope that every hon. Member will agree that those born in this country with British citizenship will have equal rights, and that they will do everything possible to secure good race relations.

Mr. James Hamilton: Before passing judgment on the day of action, will the Prime Minister talk to the president of the Allander-Fraser Institute, who forecast that there will be 200,000 unemployed in Scotland by October? Is she aware that he also forecast that school leavers will take at least two years to find their first jobs? Will she tell the unemployed and school leavers how to spend the day of action?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have extended some of the employment opportunities offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in order to ensure that school leavers have either a job or work experience when they leave school.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing and deep disquiet—not to say anger—about known and suspected abuses of diplomatic immunity? Does she agree that those abuses include not only a multitude of minor offences, but extend to possessing and distributing firearms and explosives, and to incitement to murder? Is she satisfied that the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is sufficiently comprehensive to deal effectively with those abuses?

The Prime Minister: We use the Vienna convention if we have reason to believe that those conventions are being flouted. We are continuously making it clear that all of those who come to this country in a diplomatic capacity are expected to observe the law of our land.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the hundreds of workers in my constituency who will be demonstrating tomorrow will be demonstrating not because they do not want to work but because they are textile workers who have no work to go to? Is she aware that in my constituency alone three mills have closed in the last 10 days? Is she prepared to attend a meeting or to receive a deputation of leaders of the textile industry from the North-West in order to hear their plight?

The Prime Minister: I hope that that deputation will go, in the first place, either to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry or to my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. But of course, in the last resort, I am always willing to receive deputations representing industries as important as textiles.

CIVIL SERVICE

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the efficiency and size of the Civil Service.
The Government have been reviewing the efficiency of the Civil Service in the light of experience gained in our first year in office. The work of the Civil Service divides broadly into two areas. The first is the formulation of policy and the direct support for Ministers in Parliament. The second, on which the great majority of civil servants are engaged, is carrying out the executive tasks that flow from the Government's policies in the manner and to the extent decided by Ministers.
In the past, Governments have progressively increased the number of tasks that the Civil Service is asked to do without paying sufficient attention to the need for economy and efficiency. Consequently, staff numbers have grown over the years. The present Government are committed both to a reduction in tasks and to better management. We believe that we should now concentrate on simplifying the work and doing it more efficiently. The studies that Departments have already carried out, including those in conjunction with Sir Derek Rayner, have demonstrated clearly the scope for this.
All Ministers in charge of Departments will now work out detailed plans for concentrating on essential functions and making operations simpler and more efficient in their Departments. The preparation of these plans will be coordinated by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council.
When the Government took office the size of the Civil Service was 732,000. As a result of the steps that we have already taken it is now 705,000. We intend now to bring the number down to about 630,000 over the next four years.
I recognise that contracting the size of the Government always causes staff both fears of insecurity and genuine anxiety lest important work should suffer. The Government are allowing time to produce the best possible plans, to take


account of the legitimate interests of the staff and to encourage them to involve themselves in drawing up proposals for reform. I stress that each year about 80,000 people leave the Civil Service on retirement or resignation. It should, therefore, be possible to accommodate a reduction of 75,000, spread over four years, without significant compulsory redundancy. We shall, of course, be consulting the Civil Service unions about implementing our plans.
My experience from visiting Departments, and that of Ministers and Sir Derek Rayner, is that the staff want to work in and for an efficient organisation. I have been particularly impressed by the quality and enthusiasm of the young people whom I have met in the Civil Service. They want more personal responsibility for providing the country with good value for money.
It is the Government's job to ensure that the structure of the Civil Service, its working methods and the rewards that it offers for success bring on the right kinds of talent, give it scope for personal initiative, and offer conditions that promote loyalty and commitment.
I believe that the great majority of civil servants will welcome the changes that I have described.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the right hon. Lady explain why she has come to the House today to repeat a statement that was made a month ago in the Sunday Telegraph and has been repeated in various newspapers since that time? Does she really think that this is the way of overcoming the "insecurity and genuine anxiety" of staff, to which she referred? Does she also agree that this really is nothing more than a statement of pious hope and hollow phrases, reminiscent of the White Paper of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in October 1970? We know, of course, where that led us.
Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that she will not pursue any further hiving off of Government activities to the private sector unless she can show with absolute certainty that they will not cost more to the public purse by being hived off—as some present hiving-off operations seem to be doing—than if they were kept in the public sector?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady assure the House—I hope that in due course we shall have a statement of all the cuts that are proposed, Department by Department, as was previously the case—that there will be no further statistical conjuring tricks by simply moving the designation of public servants from being civil servants to being other people in the public sector, as in the case of the National Maritime Institute and the Hydraulic Research Station, which have been made independent institutes.
Finally, the right hon. Lady must be aware—when looking at our record and, indeed, considering all the statements that we have made—that the Opposition are in favour of maximum efficiency in the Civil Service but are opposed to quite arbitrary cuts such as she announced today, which are pure across-the-board percentage figures, which have nothing to do with increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Civil Service but are simply pandering to the worst prejudices against public servants in her own party and in its supporters in the country. Before she takes precipitate action, will she remember the public reaction that arose over the proposed closure of sub-post offices, and accept that the best way of achieving a smaller Civil Service is to cut back on the unemployment in the country and make unnecessary the support that has to be given to the community at a result of the Government's economic policies?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked why make a statement now? "It is because this is the first time that we have been ready with an authoritative statement of specific numbers, having carefully considered the experience of the last year, and I felt that we should make a statement at the earliest opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman asked "Is it a statement of pious hope?" I assume by that that he is really quite hopeful that the numbers will come down to 630,000 or so. It is not a statement of pious hope; it is a statement as a basis for action.
The hon. Gentleman asked "Will there be further hiving off?" Each Minister will be looking at his own Department, and I do not wish to restrict his conclusions in any way, except that they should


be commensurate with sound management and good value for money for the taxpayer.
The hon. Gentleman asked about statistical conjuring tricks. All statistics are freely available, as he knows, and are in fact published.
The hon. Gentleman calls this a statement of arbitrary cuts. I do not think that he can have been listening to the statement. This is a statement designed to reduce the tasks carried out by the Civil Service, to carry them out more simply, and to get very much better and more efficient management in the carrying out of those tasks throughout the entire Civil Service.

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend will know that it was said that an increase of more than 18 per cent. in central Government pay was brought within the 14 per cent. cash limit only by a reduction in numbers. As, presumably, it is not the intention that every reduction in numbers should justify an increase in pay, how shall we distinguish between reductions due to high pay claims and reductions due to the programme that my right hon. Friend has just announced?

The Prime Minister: It think that reductions in numbers will go towards the target that I have announced. Part of that target is already on the way to achievement. As my right hon. Friend heard, we have already reduced the numbers by 27,000. There are further reductions under way this year, arising partly because of that pay settlement, and others will go in partial achievement of the target that I announced today.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Prime Minister accept that the key part of her statement is in refreshing contrast to the statements of her Cabinet colleagues? The right hon. Lady finds it practicable to commit the Government to a precise and specific figure four years hence. With regard to her reference to young civil servants wanting more responsibility, what will she do now, perhaps partly in the light of her own achievements, to remove the unjustified and unnecessary barriers to engineers, scientists, accountants and other professional people reaching the top administrative posts in the Civil Service?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the key part of the statement, it is that experience has shown that we are not necessarily using the best and simplest management methods throughout the Civil Service. Having looked at some of those matters, I am confident that we can carry out the tasks with fewer people than at present. The hon. Gentleman asked why it was impossible for scientists, engineers and others to get to the top in the Civil Service. It is not, and I hope that more will.

Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend accept the view from one who has made a personal contribution to the reduction of bureaucracy that the reduction that she has in mind is at least attainable over the next four years? I hope that we would do rather better. Will my right hon. Friend also accept that the fact that her Government have discovered such a scope for reduction seriously calls into question the contribution of the Civil Service Department over the years? There is therefore a case for carefully considering whether that Department should be either made more efficient or abolished.

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that we can take all the reductions in bureaucracy into this House, which is the course that my hon. Friend followed—and we were delighted to have him. With regard to the CSD, we have to remember that for years the Civil Service has had a Government who loaded extra tasks on to it and who seemed to us to encourage the retention of as many people as possible. We have a different approach, and we shall have the cooperation of the Civil Service Department in carrying out that new approach. Of that I am confident.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her statement—which might give rise to misunderstanding—that the formulation of policy is a function of the Civil Service? Is it not exclusively the function of Ministers, in respect of which the function of the Civil Service is purely to assist?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I should have said that it was to assist in the formulation of policy. I wholly accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the Prime Minister tell us about the omission from her statement of a matter touched on by her Government and the previous Government—the dispersal of Civil Service posts from London?

The Prime Minister: There is no change in the plans, numbers and destinations announced.

Mr. Butcher: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend in implementing yet another election pledge? Does she agree that these reductions in central Government administration are an excellent example to set before those local authorities that still insist that it is impossible to make staff reductions?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that local authorities will see what is being done in central Government—and being done more efficently. That efficiency will be further improved. I hope that local authorities will regard it as their duty to put the minimum rate burden on their citizens.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I appreciate the Prime Minister's aspirations to improve the efficiency of the Civil Service, but does she accept that it is slightly unrealistic, even nonsensical, to talk about reductions of 75,000 over four years without indicating from where those savings are to come? Are they to come from the 200,000 industrial civil servants, where manufacturing functions are already contracting, or from the 500,000 administrative civil servants? Will the right hon. Lady accept that to make such a statement without drawing that distinction between the industrial and administrative civil servants is wholly unrealistic?

The Prime Minister: The reductions will come from both sides. The statement is not unrealistic. In the past year we have already secured a reduction of about 27,000 jobs. The attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman is typical of a number of hon. Members of his political faith. They defend every job and never consider whether that job needs to be done, or how best it can be done.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be widely welcomed in the country as a major step

in the right direction? Will she seriously consider accepting the proposal, which I believe has been made by Sir Derek Rayner, to abolish the grade of undersecretary? Will she also consider whether there is still a useful role for the Property Services Agency?

The Prime Minister: We are looking at the grading of the Civil Service. Some people believe that the chain of command is too long. A review is under way, but it will take time to reach conclusions. With regard to the Property Services Agency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at the work that it does and how Ministers can be more responsible for buildings, rent and overheads, which hitherto have been handled by the agency.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I recognise the need to improve efficiency, but will the Prime Minister publish the scientific method that she has adopted in order to conclude that simplification will provide a reduction of exactly 75,000, or has she simply thought of that figure and divided it among the Departments?

The Prime Minister: Neither. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman knows precious little about management.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an efficient and well-managed private sector firm it would be normal to find at every level of management some who had been promoted internally and others who had been recruited from outside, who had brought other experience to the business? In seeking to improve the efficiency with which the Civil Service manages its executive responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend consider whether advantages could be derived through increasing recruitment from outside at all levels and removing obstacles that might exist to civil servants moving into industry and the private sector?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has identified a problem to which, frankly, we have never found a solution. From time to time we have been able to recruit people for a limited number of years, but they have then returned to industry. We have never had people working regularly in industry and then the Civil Service with the ease that occurs in other countries. That is a problem to which we


must give attention. It is very much easier to have better and sound administration if we have more people in the Civil Service who have practical experience of industry and commerce.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Prime Minister accept from those of us who have substantial numbers of civil servants in our constituencies that her flatulent and empty statement will do no more than spread uncertainty among civil servants and lead to a worsening of labour relations? If the right hon. Lady is interested in effective and sound management in the Civil Service, why does she give so much support to the clumsy forays of Sir Derek Rayner, instead of opting for the systematic method proposed by the Fulton committee 10 years ago and wrecked by the previous Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: If Sir Derek Rayner could teach the Civil Service to manage itself as well as he manages Marks and Spencer's I should be very pleased.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four hon. Members from either side.

Mr. Chris Patten: Roughly what proportion of the cuts will be achieved through redundancy and what proportion through natural wastage and early retirement? Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about the proposals mentioned in the newspapers about the early retirement scheme?

The Prime Minister: I believe that compulsory redundancy will be a very small exception to the general rule. Between 75,000 and 80,000 people leave the Civil Service every year through resignation or retirement. I therefore hope that over a period of four years we shall be able to reduce the Civil Service by 75,000 without many compulsory redundancies. There will be exceptions. There might be one or two jobs for which we could not easily redeploy the persons concerned, but the great majority of jobs will go by natural wastage. We are working on plans for early retirement, which we hope will prove attractive to some people.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the action that she has announced will include a proportion of the higher grades of the Civil

Service? In coming to a decision about numbers, will she realise that this matter concerns the House deeply? It is coming to the view that all the Prime Minister did was to think of a number and leave the implementation to the years that were to follow. That is no way to obtain an efficient Civil Service.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes, Sir." The reductions must include the upper levels of the Civil Service. It would be wholly unfair and inefficient to make reductions only towards the base of the pyramid. The figure was chosen extremely carefully. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps bear in mind that we have already reduced the number by 27,000. He can therefore have some confidence that we shall be able to reduce it by a similar amount annually in the future.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on her admirable statement? Will she confirm, contrary to press reports, that no Departments of State are exempt from this slimming process? Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), now that one of the major Civil Service unions has turned its back on the Pay Research Unit, will she consider putting it on ice altogether?

The Prime Minister: No Departments will be exempt, although there will be areas in particular Departments—for example, the prison service—where one would expect no reductions whatever. Apart from such areas, no Department will be exempt. With regard to the Pay Research Unit, we have just got through this year's pay round. I accept that public sector pay, particularly in the coming year, gives cause for concern, but we have not yet got a ready or easy solution.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Did the Prime Minister find it difficult to say at 3.25 pm that most people would want to go to work and then at 3.35 pm to say that, because of her policies, there would be 100,000 fewer jobs, in four years' time, to go to? Will she tell the House where this figure of 75,000 came from, and how it is made up? Most hon. Members now suspect, as has been stated, that it is simply a figure grasped out of thin air.


As the architect of this report, Sir Derek Rayner, is managing director of Marks and Spencer's, is it her ambition to turn the Civil Service into a Marks and Spencer-type store, where the citizens of the United Kingdom call at the office to solve their own problems?

The Prime Minister: It is, indeed, our ambition to get maximum efficiency and co-operation from the Civil Service. On the extra target that I have announced—that is, 75,000 down—the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, following decisions already made, we are already half-way towards achieving that target. The extra target that I have given does not require a great deal more decision-making on functions.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The target for reductions set by my right hon. Friend is wholly welcome. Will she confirm that it will be reached not by percentage across-the-board cuts, blindly conducted, but by a proper evaluation, carefully phased, of the value of the work actually done? In the categories of scientific and technical civil servants, for example, there are a number who are vital to our defence effort and who are already in dangerously short supply.

The Prime Minister: It is for that kind of reason that we have not said that each and every Department must produce the same percentage cut. We have asked each and every Minister to scrutinise his own Department in the way that I have described, assisted by the CSD and coordinated by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. We have those factors very much in mind.

Mr. Dunlop: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Fair Employment Agency in Northern Ireland is shortly to scrutinise the Civil Service there? Will the numerous English civil servants who have gone to Northern Ireland recently be included in this scrutiny? Does the right hon. Lady agree that this so-called Fair Employment Agency is one of the most useless and expensive quangos in the country today?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the announcement that I have made, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be in charge. I shall leave him to carry out the scrutiny

of his Department, together with those who work in it.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in private industry the facts of the market mean that every now and then, because of a downturn in business, a company has to take stock, look at its business, and see how best to improve its efficiency? That may mean staff reductions. That does not happen in the Civil Service. The Government therefore have to come from outside and impose upon the Civil Service the kind of discipline that is imposed in private enterprise by the nature of the market place.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do ourselves that which we expect others to do. Above all, we must give efficient service and value for money to the taxpayers who pay for our action.

Mr. Straw: Is the Prime Minister not aware that even if there are no compulsory redundancies, her statement means 75,000 fewer job opportunities in the Civil Service in four years' time, and that 75,000 people, especially school leavers, who previously would have gone into the Civil Service, will be searching for jobs? Will she say where those people will find jobs? Will they have to join the dole queue?

The Prime Minister: There will be fewer jobs. It seems, however, that the attitude taken by Opposition Members is to endeavour to put the maximum burden on the taxpayer and employ the maximum number of people in the Civil Service.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ten Minutes Rule motion, Mr. John Wells.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker.: Mr. Speaker. Order. It is becoming a feature that when some hon. Members are not called on statements they raise a point of order. I shall see whether it is a genuine point of order and not simply the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not called.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect the principle that when a Minister makes a statement of fact, those facts—a quotation from a document or whatever is involved—should be available to the House. In this


case the right hon. Lady told the Opposition Front Bench that all the statistics on the subject were freely available. That is not true. I do not blame the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Cryer: I do.

Mr. English: I believe that she might not have been told that it is not true. On the last occasion when statistics on this matter were given subsequently in a Committee of the House, I asked for them to be translated into the legal definition of civil servants. Those figures have not yet been given to a Committee or to the House. On this occasion, the right hon. Lady seemed to be giving statistics in the same old form, according to a definition, coined in 1931, of a civil servant.
Hon. Members would like to know all the statistics that the right hon. Lady says are freely available, namely, the statistics of civil servants to be removed, under her proposals, in accordance with the Bill introduced by the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that became the Superannuation Act 1972. That contains the only statutory legal definition of a civil servant. It would be helpful to the House, since the right hon. Lady says that all these statistics are freely available, if she made them available to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister, like anyone else, takes responsibility for her own statements. Ten Minutes Rule motion, Mr. John Wells.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2)

Mr. John Wells: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of the nomination of candidates at elections; and for connected purposes.
There are few right hon. and hon. Members of this House, except you, Mr. Speaker, and I, who have fought elections as independents. You fought your election from your present high office. I fought my independent election as a brash young man in a small municipal council, fighting both a Conservative and a Labour opponent. I have no objection to brash young men chasing around a constituency, explaining what they stand for and seeking to get people to vote for them, but I have great objection to the conduct of the National Front in the recent May elections in my constituency.
I have here a list that sounds rather like the football results. It goes like this: Sheffield 1, Blackburn 1, Bolton 2, Oldham 2. Rochdale 5, Birmingham 4, Coventry 4, Reigate and Banstead 1, and so on, down to Maidstone 9. That disastrous figure is the number of National Front candidates that put up in my constituency on 1 May.
My local newspaper, the Kent Messenger, through its deputy news editor, mounted an investigation in depth into the nomination of these nine persons. It is fair to say that it found a sprinkling of bona fide National Front supporters, but it also found that there were many people who were completely tricked and misled into supporting National Front candidates. The paper's journalists inteviewed 53 people who were sponsors of those nine candidates. I shall read out a few of the comments that were made to these investigaive journalists.
One proposer for a candidate said that two men had called and said that if she signed it would in no way involve her. They told her that her name would not be used. An 84-year-old man said that the men who came around did not explain what he was signing but he had signed just to get rid of them. A lady


of 87 said that she had no idea what the National Front was and did not know what she had signed. Then there was a very silly lady who said "I always vote Liberal. A young woman came round and I signed up for the Liberals". I must assure the House that the Liberal Party does not have a monopoly of silliness in my constituency. From this sad little list of episodes I have garnered a leading Conservative who was equally silly and a leading Socialist who was, perhaps, even sillier.
I will not bore the House by reading out the comments of all these people, but the testimony of some of them is worth hearing. A man of 66 said: "Two men called. They did not give their names, but they asked me to sign a petition. It had several names on it. I did not have my glasses and I was in a hurry. I believe that it was about the lift—they said it was nothing to do with politics." A young woman—I might almost call her a dolly bird—said "I do not remember their saying that they were from the National Front. They said they were campaigning for the elderly." Again, a proposer aged 77 said he was shocked. "I feel I have been tricked. Some people called round asking whether I had any complaints about the housing. I just signed thinking that it was some sort of petition. I thought that they wanted to help us with the repairs. I would never have signed if I had known what it was for, because I am a Conservative. "Again, a man aged 86 was not at home when the journalists called, but his daughter was quite sure that he would never have supported the National Front.
Every signature of a sponsor came from a ward containing a not-very-good block of council flats in Maidstone. They were all residents of those flats—old and young, really rather sad people. They had been tricked into signing those nominations. Unfortunately, I cannot find my silly Labour supporter at the moment, so I will not hold up the House while I look for that example. I assure hon. Members that there was a Labour supporter who was just as silly as the rest.
The purpose of my Bill is simple. I do not believe that it would in any

way hamper democracy. All of us who go to the count after an election have to get a declaration of secrecy, signed either by the returning officer or a magistrate. Therefore, I believe that one of the 10 signatures should be taken either in front of the returning officer or a magistrate and the person witnessing the signature should read out a simple little statement such as "You, Mrs. X, understand that by signing this paper you will be supporting Mr. Y, who is a supporter of such-and-such a party, "or "who is not a party candidate. You understand that your signature will be published in prominent places". I suggest that only one signature should be so witnessed because I do not want any brake on democracy. It will be only a slight nuisance. I am not seeking to impose deposits.
I remind the House of my own experience as a brash young man fighting as an independent I polled 200 votes on that occasion, whereas the entire National Front brigade in Maidstone earlier this month could muster only 185 votes between all nine candidates. Therefore, it was a frivolity and an impertinent intrusion on our democratic procedures.
I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill. I am a realist and I deplore the conduct of those hon. Members who bring in Ten-Minute Bills at this stage of the parliamentary Session for some do-gooding cause. In doing so they raise the hopes of a lot of worthy people outside who do not understand what is going on. I seek to bring in a Bill to put a shot across the bows of a lot of "do-badding" people, and I hope that the Home Office will take note of my intent. I know that I cannot possibly get the Bill on to the statute book this Session, but my measure is a little step forward towards controlling daft candidates. It will not stop the colourful candidates because the genuine person will be able to get one of his sponsors in front of a magistrate or returning officer. It will be no brake on democracy or on colour, but it will put a shot across the bows of evil people who have behaved evilly in my constituency in recent weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Wells, Mr. David Mellor, Mrs. Jill


Knight, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. John Stokes, Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. J. W. Rooker.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2)

Mr. John Wells accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of the nomination of candidates at elections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

Orders of the Day — IRAN (TEMPORARY POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I raise a point of order that I have discussed with you, Mr. Weatherill? Before doing so, I make it clear that I think that your selection of amendments is generous and I make no blanket complaint. However, there may be a case for selecting amendment No. 7 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, which proposes to insert
or out of the United Kingdom's policy and obligations towards the United States of America.
I suggest that we would not be discussing this measure at all were it not, to use the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
for the good health of the Alliance."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 913.]
and for reasons such as Mr. Attlee's going to the United States at the time of Korea.
Therefore, it is an issue, above all others, of the American alliance, and were it not for the pressure of Mr. Carter's Washington we should certainly not be discussing this measure today.
Indeed, in a BBC radio interview the Foreign Secretary said:
More a political gesture, quite frankly…The only way to get the hostages released is by intense diplomatic activity.
One has to ask whether that activity will be helped by sanctions. It is a matter of regret that the Foreign Secretary is not a member of this House—

The Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his point of order. This it not the occasion for a speech.

Mr. Dalyell: My point is that if the argument is that we have to take certain actions when our friends are in trouble—and that is the centre of the argument—surely it would be right to discuss an amendment that ties the Bill to the policy of the United States.

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about my selection. I have indeed sought to be as generous as I can in meeting all the points on the Amendment Paper. However, I cannot agree to his request. Amendment No. 7 goes beyond the scope of the Bill and I must leave the selection as it is. I am sorry.

Clause 1

POWERS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH IRAN.

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out
' either contracts for services or '

The Chairman: With this, we may take the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 1, line 8, leave out ' or transport '.

No. 4, in page 1, line 8, after ' goods', insert '
other than the products of oil companies).'

No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 18.

No. 9, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
' and
(c) shall not apply to the renewal or extension of any contract.'.

No. 10, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
and
(c) shall not apply to any contract made as a result of carrying out international obligations.'.

No. 11, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
' and
(c) shall not apply to any contract, if failure to secure that contract would result in people being made redundant or put on short time; unless the government shall compensate those people for any loss of income.'.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to start by looking at certain industries that are involved in service problems, including, for example, the chemical industry. In 1979, our exports to Iran from the chemical industry totalled £39·3 million, a drop from £71 million in 1978.
What is the definition of pharmaceuticals excluded from the list of items under the embargo and what is the machinery for determining which goods are or are

not embargoed? It is no part of my plan to keep the Committee going unnecessarily, and I am not concerned to keep people up to all hours of the night merely for the sake of keeping them up, but there is a series of genuine questions that have to be put and I thick that they should be put fairly early.
We come up against the whole problem of renewals, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who pointed out that a number of existing contracts with Iran include an option for renewal. If such an option came up, would it be treated as a new contract or as an existing contract?
The Minister for Trade referred last night to the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 but said that no decision had been taken to use such powers and that no decision would be taken unless others were doing the same. The hon. Gentleman knows that the nature of the chemical industry is such that it has not one-off agreements but running agreements.
In West Lothian, as in many other constituencies, there are huge chemical complexes, particularly at Grangemouth. I know something about the industry, as does the Minister. It is not just a debating question but a real question when we consider what is a renewal of an existing contract and what is a new contract. Sometimes the line between them can be very thin. I should like a further statement on that matter.
Incidentally, I must refer back to the speeches of a number of hon. Members, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), last night. How on earth does one find out, when a ship is approaching the Gulf, whether the merchandise that it is carrying is part of a new contract or part of an existing, renewed contract? Such matters are mind-boggling in their complexity.
I turn to the question of the compressed air industry. Compair, the British Compressed Air Equipment group, has benefited from the current improvement with Iran. Sales there had been negligible since before the revolution, when they ran at about £5 million a year, but a sales team that returned in late April reported a genuine upturn in business


confidence and brought back the first significant order since the end of 1978.
Compair's main competitor is the firm of Atlas Copce of Sweden. What is Atlas doing in the light of the proposed embargo? It is busy trying to fill the gap, or should I say, given that its business is compressed air, the vacuum. Does it make any difference that Atlas has a United States subsidiary and partner? Not a bit, I understand. If we impose sanctions, Atlas will apparently take little notice, and that Swedish-American company will pinch British business that has been hard won over the years and regained after the revolution by the sweat of the brows of those who work for Compair.
That raises fundamental questions about both goods and services, which are the subject of amendment No. 2. It is all very well for the Government to say that we shall not be behind our competitors or in front of them. I ask them to find out what is happening in actual cases. To impose sanctions and remove business from a British firm such as Compair and then to find that a Swedish-American company, with, presumably, all sorts of American connections, pinches that business will not be a sensible situation.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is knitting his brow. He knows a lot about the chemical industry and, therefore, he must know that there are many multinational companies with American connections. My point is that to see British firms that have struggled in the Iranian market, which has never been easy, having their business taken over by competitors who have connections with the United States is a bit difficult.
I cannot help referring to the article in The Guardian by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who described how his Whips seized him by the upper arm and said:
It may not make much sense, but when the chips are down we must stand by our friends.
The hon. Gentleman wrote:
The President will continue to decide his course of action in the light of his own priorities, most of which are domestic and we should not compound the errors of our allies. We must be the candid friend".
In the light of the Compair example and other industrial examples, we have to

ask precisely why we are doing all this. If the hon. Member for Aldershot and a host of others are to be believed, we are doing it for the Americans. My question therefore becomes doubly valid. Is there not an obligation on firms that may be registered in Stockholm but nevertheless have intimate American connections not to take advantage of their competitors?
I go on from the compressed air industry to the electrical machinery industry. That industry points out that once the habit of buying British is interrupted it is very difficult to re-establish that habit and it can be done only with enormous difficulty. So we must not imagine that by starting a policy of sanctions all we are doing is creating some kind of minor hiccup. We must be under no illusion at all that this policy will have lasting effects and that once we are out of a market like that of electrical machinery and once—dare I say it?—the East Germans are in, we shall be unable to get the East Germans out, and to get back in when the political situation becomes better will be very difficult. So at issue here is possible lasting damage to British industry.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point and, of course, it is one that was made vigorously in respect of sanctions against Rhodesia, Chile and many others. Will the hon. Gentleman say how he voted then?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, quite openly. I voted absolutely along the line of Labour Party policy on Rhodesia. I have never made any public statement on Rhodesia. The truth is that in politics I think people should open their mouths in public only on those subjects which they pretend to know about. Without being pompous, I decided at a very early stage that I was no expert on Rhodesia, and I have never asked a question or made a speech in this House on Rhodesia.
Having said that, I am bound to add that we learn a bit about how ineffective in the short term or how effective in the long term sanctions are. However, I give the candid answer that I voted for sanctions all along. Perhaps the experience of Rhodesian sanctions, knowing how often they were got round, should make us very dubious about this proposition. I am not setting up as a knight in shining armour and saying I was correct all


along. I admit that I supported Rhodesian sanctions. In fact, given the situation, I would probably have done so again—I must make that quite clear—but people learn, and these things are not black and white.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would my hon. Friend agree that there was near universal observation of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia and that they did considerable damage to that economy, but that the present case is a question of politics by gesture, and that we and one or two other Western countries are making gestures against Iran, thereby helping our enemies in that part of the world and letting all our industrial and commercial competitors into an area where we have some contacts, which we are now going to abandon by wilful intention?

Mr. Dalyell: I agree particularly with my hon. Friend's point about gesture politics, because since he and I have been in the House we have learnt how very dangerous gesture politics can be—doing things that we do not entirely mean because we think it will please this or that group or country. I agree entirely with him that gesture politics are a very dangerous pastime and can be counter-productive. He knows far more about the effect of Rhodesian sanctions than I do, and I am interested that he says that they were not as ineffective as I had thought. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the former President of the Board of Trade, may agree with that.
It is one thing to have had sanctions against Rhodesia, which was landlocked and where, apart from South Africa, there were people who agreed with the policy on the borders of that country, but it is a totally different proposition to apply sanctions to a country which has a port on the Persian Gulf and where there are neighbouring countries—not only the Soviet Union, but also Turkey—which certainly will not co-operate in the sanctions. Therefore, in general terms, I accept what my hon. Friend says.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman is aware, of course, that this is not a Second Reading debate. It is a debate related to a series of amendments,

all of which are absolutely specific. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should address himself to companies, services, and so on.

Mr. Dalyell: That is why I am coming back precisely to the matter of industry, but not at great length because the proposition was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) last night. But there again the matter of service is directly related, and I suppose I had better declare a constituency interest since I represent the truck and tractor division of Leyland, which, like Massey-Ferguson, is affected.
To take, for example, the Land Rover and the 6,000 bits for those four-wheel drive vehicles which have been assembled in Iran by another nationalised industry, this is a service relationship—and I have related all the industrial points in amendment No. 2 to service. The truth is that the whole nature of the business of kit assembly relates to service and to renewal, and it cannot just be brought to an end. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton and those representing Coventry are so concerned about the Talbot situation.
If the Government are saying that Talbot is excluded, the Land Rover is excluded and Leyland is excluded, are we sure what is to be the future of Leyland Motors in Iran and the Leyland factory in Tabriz? It is all very well to say that they will be excluded, but the matter of tit-for-tat comes into it. The Iranians will not accept cosily and neatly the terms that we lay down. If there are to be new practices in the industry, I can imagine the natural human reaction of the Iranians. If we mess them around, they will mess us around, and it is very unreal to think that we shall have some easy, cosy, well-ordered continuing of contracts if we go ahead with this proposition.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend referred to the Leyland contract. Has he been given an undertaking that British Leyland is not to be affected by sanctions?

Mr. Dalyell: I have been given no undertaking. All I can report is that there are people in the Leyland management who are profoundly worried about it—as, indeed, there are in the Massey-


Ferguson management. I am looking for the Minister to make, at some time convenient to him, and I hope on this amendment, a statement as to the position of the motor industry.
Take, for example, the position of Massey-Ferguson, which is competing with the Romanians to supply tractor kits to the factory in Tabriz, in the north of Iran, where there is the main assembly plant. Massey-Ferguson's sales amounted to some $80 million in 1978 and they were down to $8 million last year. Incidentally, there is no payment problem. The company reports that the new Iranian authorities have been very quick, prompt and careful about payments.
4.30 pm
Massey-Ferguson executives have been visiting the country regularly this year, and they hope for a considerably improved order. Massey-Ferguson is competing with a less sophisticated and probably, from the point of view of the Iranians, a less attractive tractor to be made under Romanian auspices. If a cut-off is threatened in the future, the balance of advantage is with the Romanian competitors. Once those competitors are established, does anyone think that Massey-Ferguson will easily get back the business? If we think that, we are living in industrial cloud-cuckoo-land. It is not how the world works. If the Minister thinks differently, doubtless he will say so.
I listened with interest to the speech made last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). She said that she hoped that continuing talks would produce results. Are those talks more likely or less likely to achieve results if we go along with sanctions? My hon. Friend said that she believed in economic pressure. Those who believe in economic pressure have to be quite clear about what the motor industry will suffer from economic pressure. There is a considerable price to be paid. Even if the hostages were released and sent back to the United States, after all this economic pressure it is very unlikely that we would get back our tractor market.
I come to shipping, which is a service industry, and I am speaking to amendment no. 2. A 20,000-tonne support ship is being built by Swan Hunter at Wallsend. How much has already been

paid by the Iranians, and what is the position of that contract? There are difficult issues of law here, and the Minister owes it to the House to explain the legal position. I understand that the Iranians have largely paid for the ship, so the question of confiscation arises, and that raises deep issues. As a Scottish Member, I also want to ask about the two smaller support ships being built by Yarrow. They are some way from completion. When will the decision be taken about those ships?
It is all very well to shrug one's shoulders and say that sanctions will be neutralised by ships taking goods to ports along the Gulf and the goods then being ferried across. It is true that there is plenty of surplus tonnage in the Gulf, but there will be a bias against those who have imposed sanctions and favourable attitudes to those who have not imposed sanctions. So the British shipping industry will be at a disadvantage and the Russian railway system may be a beneficiary.
We should not underestimate Iran's agreements with East Germany and Romania. What is to prevent someone in Dubai or Bahrain ordering from Britain what the Iranians need, having it sent to Dubai or Bahrain, and then ferrying it across to an Iranian port?
Equally, what is to prevent a Turkish entrepreneur, or the owners of the 2,500 Bulgarian lorries that already travel between Iran and Western Europe, ordering precisely what the Iranians would have ordered, and then at a small profit transferring the embargoed goods to Iran?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: They are doing it now.

Mr. Dalyell: If it is being done now, what is to prevent its continuing to be done? The Minister smiles a wry smile. These are real questions, not debating points. Unless there is total co-operation, I do not see how it can be prevented. The British Government will not go round industry saying "Are you sure that the order that has come from Dubai or Ankara is not intended to go to Iran? "That leads me to the conclusion that the whole business is futile.
The shipowners have expressed a fear that they could be boxed into Iranian ports. What is certain is that there will be high insurance premiums, which will


make shipping insurance, expensive enough already, even more prohibitive.
What is to be the policy about goods in foreign ships? Unless there is a military blockade, nothing can be done about that. Because nothing can be done, we get concerned about the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and many others. Supposing sanctions fail, what is the next step? What is the step after that? From examination of the shipping position, it is clear that the only step that can be taken after sanctions is military action. I hope that there is a consensus in the House against any kind of military action.

Mr. James Lamond: I consider that some military action has already been taken.

Mr. Dalyell: We should not be under any misunderstanding that what happened, justified or unjustified, was military action.
We are asked to impose sanctions. I am told repeatedly that American goods are still getting into Iran. An official of the Committee for Middle East Trade, whom I will not name, is referred to in an article in the Financial Times of 25 April 1980. That committee is a section of the British Overseas Trade Board. The official points out that, despite the United States Iranian relations crisis, American goods have continued to reach Iran, partly through the ports on the Arab shore of the Gulf and certainly through Dubai, which could be used for circumventing a Western boycott, apart from its traditional role as an embarkation point for smuggling goods into Iran. I am asking the British Government whether they have any information on this point and whether they deny that this is so.
Are we to take measures against Dubai and against the other ports in the Gulf? If we do not, the proposition is once more proved to be ineffective. I am entitled to ask the Minister—the Minister shakes his head—whether he proposes a Beira-type patrol in the Gulf. I give way, because if the point can be cleared up my speech will be shorter.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): It might not be a bad idea if

the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) looked at the Bill to see what it covers. The Bill states exactly to whom it applies and to what it applies. It applies to future contracts for services, or the sale, supply or transport of goods. It applies to a range of people who are defined in clause 2(5) as being in
The Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any colony and…to any foreign country or territory in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction.
The Bill also applies to British citizens in control of a ship or an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. The Bill is quite specific. It applies to British citizens in certain areas. It also applies to them if they are in charge of a ship or an aircraft registered in this country. This is the scope of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: May I ask the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) once again to confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I am on amendment No. 3 precisely, and I am turning to amendment No. 4, which deals with transport. That raises the question of the transport of goods. I am glad that the Minister agrees about that. In this context we must consider Turkey and the land transport that passes through that country. Goods can be brought by sea to Turkey and moved overland by truck. A post-Khomeini agreement ends any kind of transit fee. Furthermore, new visa requirements have encouraged many of the Turkish owner-drivers to use their own 10-ton trucks on the route to Iran. The advantage of the Turkish sea-land route to those countries not applying sanctions is that they would avoid the heavy insurance imposed on ships using the Gulf and also avoid dangers.
Have the Government reached any understanding with Turkey about transport? The important routes through Turkey were notoriously bribe-prone and clogged during the regime of the Shah. There is now a change. There are no transit fees. Their abolition is partly in return for oil that the Khomeini regime has promised to Turkey.
Ankara may be under heavy pressure to fall in with American policies, but Premier Suleyman Demirel is deeply dependent on Muslim support. Neither his Cabinet colleagues in Ankara nor the


Opposition would tolerate any anti-Iran moves. It is no good the Minister of State knitting his brow. We are discussing transport, and Turkey is crucial in relation to land transport.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister does not agree with the Bill, anyhow.

Mr. Dalyell: It is up to the Minister to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that he believes in the Bill.
Tehran has offered the destitute and cash-short Turkish economy 1·6 million tons of oil on easy terms. The frontier to local trade has been opened and the Iranians have made it possible to get diesel oil to Eastern Turkey on easy terms.
If there is no agreement with the Turks on land transport, what is to prevent any country that does not apply sanctions from buying goods such as machinery from British firms and selling them to a Turkish or other entrepreneur? That buyer can then transport the goods across Turkey in huge trucks and thus reach Iran. That question must be answered.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. He knows the answer. The Bill has relatively limited scope. It covers contracts for the supply of goods and services. If a British firm enters into an agreement, indirectly, to supply Iran, it will be breaking the law, but if a British firm sells to a Turkish firm, we have no jurisdiction in Turkey. We cannot close the Turkish border. The hon. Gentleman does not need to be told that by me.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Bill is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) says that the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on.

Mr. Alan Clark: If that is the case, sit down. It is a ridiculous Bill. We know that.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) says this

is a ridiculous Bill, and I agree with him. On the other hand, I did not see him in the Division Lobby last night. Therefore, I ask him why he did not join his hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who had the courage of his convictions.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As far as I know, this amendment was not being considered in the Division Lobby last night.

Mr. Dalyell: I was merely expressing sadness at the sedentary interruption from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton. He made a bold statement in the press about what he thought of the Bill. He uses language that is far stronger than I would dare to use about the Bill and yet he expects me to shut up and let him go home. He believes that everyone recognises the futility of the Bill. It is not like that. Though the Bill may be futile, it will have a variety of effects throughout the Middle East.

Mr. Clark: It is not correct that I made a statement in the press. I do not make statements to the press. I make them here, on the Floor of the House. I was trying to tell the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no point in his demonstrating that the Bill is ineffective. Is he criticising the Bill on these grounds and urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to make it more effective, or is he simply demonstrating that the Bill is futile and impotent? If it is the latter, he is wasting the time of any hon. Member with the slightest degree of percipience.

Mr. Dalyell: In the sense that the Bill cannot possibly work, it is far from impotent. The Bill is profoundly damaging in the effects that it will have in the Middle East. We get the worst of all possible worlds from the Bill. If it were useless and impotent, I would not be detaining my colleagues by making long speeches about it. The effect that the Bill will have in the Middle East is considerable.

The amendments relate to services. In the wisdom of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the amendments have been grouped together. If they had not been grouped we could have had a series of shorter speeches.

Mr. James Lamond: My hon. Friend is pursuing the amendments with the object of demonstrating the futility and uselessness of the Bill. He has tabled amendments which enable him to expand his arguments. As always, he recognises that it is his duty to prevent such Bills from being passed. I recall the fight that he had against a similarly useless and futile Bill which was supposed to give devolution to Scotland and which he killed by his efforts.

Mr. Dalyell: I am flattered, but I should be out of order if I sought to pursue that. Part of the job of the House of Commons is to expose Bills which are a sham and will not work. I object to propositions by those who do not believe in them.

Mr. Heffer: Gesture politics.

Mr. Dalyell: Gesture politics are extremely dangerous. People get into trouble when they become involved in gesture politics. This Bill and the Scotland Bill have one thing in common—many of their protagonists did not or do not believe in them.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Were the sanctions against Rhodesia gesture politics? If they were, they were an important gesture.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are dealing with a series of amendments, none of which has anything to do with Rhodesia.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall leave Rhodesia and go to Australia.

Mr. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Surely it is possible to make comparisons.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is a question of the scope of the Bill and the debate. I am referring the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the amendment to which I imagine he is addressing himself.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. One of the amendments is amendment No. 10, which refers to "international obligations". An hon. Member could make a speech about international obligations and be justified in referring to what happened in Rhodesia, Chile or any other country.

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not want to jump the fence before we reach it. I am not sure what such a speech would be like, so I shall wait until it is made.

Mr. Dalyell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) because comparisons are valid. However, we have had a short discussion about comparisons and time is moving on. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Walton will deal with it later.

Mr. Heffer: I think that my hon. Friend should deal with it later.

Mr. Dalyell: How will it be possible to determine which ship is carrying what? Let us consider Australia's position. If British ships cannot get in, what happens to Australian and New Zealand goods? Australia and New Zealand send one-third of their lamb exports to Iran. Food exports from Australia and New Zealand in the second half of last year were worth $68 million. Most of the lamb was carried in British refrigerated ships. How will we police ships carrying some Australian goods, some New Zealand goods, some British goods, some food, some materials that are embargoed and some that are not?

Mr. Parkinson: Food and medical supplies are exempt from the sanctions resolution which the Russians vetoed in the Security Council. The various member countries, including Australia, New Zealand, the EEC countries, America and Canada, are involved. We are taking action to enable us to meet that sanctions resolution. The member countries have committed themselves to meet the sanctions resolution which specifically excludes food and medical supplies.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: Where in the Bill are food and medical supplies excluded? There is no reference to them. A number of exclutions resolution, which specifically ex-of intent are one thing, but there should be a statutory statement that food and medicine are excluded.

Mr. Dalyell: Why is there no statutory statement in the legislation? Mr. Carter and the press have said that food and medicines are excluded. Why is it not


in the Bill? Will the Minister save time by answering the question?

Mr. Parkinson: This is simply an enabling Bill. The specific provisions which the Government decide to make when they decide to take action will be outlined in the orders which will be laid before the House.

Mr. Dalyell: That does not seem a satisfactory legislative practice.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why does the Bill exclude the banks and not food?

Mr. Dalyell: That is a good question. The Bill deals in some detail with banks, but food and medicine are not dealt with. These are complicated matters. In no way do I criticise the Minister for not knowing the answer. I shall not chide him for not having such facts in his head. If he obtains the information, I shall give way later.
The whole shipping question is complicated. Let us consider Brazil. Between 50,000 and 100,000 tonnes of vegetable oil comes from Brazil every month. Related substances might come under the category of industrial use. How do we find out what is a British chemical substance or a Brazilian vegetable oil? Policing is impossible.
The Indians have been asked to supply consumer and engineering goods on a priority basis. An official Indian delegation in Tehran recently was asked to supply cement, sugar, textiles, drugs, steel, tyres and tubes, as well as eggs, meat, onions and potatoes. Significantly, Iran asked also that such goods should be carried in Indian vessels. Has the Department of Trade estimated the loss to British shipping of goods from India previously carried in British ships? There should be some estimate, because there is a transfer from British shipping to shipping of other countries, as specified by Iran.

5 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend talks about British shipping and Indian shipping. There is a problem here because there is a tendency for ships to be leased to would-be owners, and there is a chance that it will be the same ship except that it is called an Indian ship rather than a British ship. Is it not a complicated

matter to try to define what is British shipping? Presumably, under the Bill, if a person leased a ship knowing that it would be used for trade with Iran, he would be in breach of the regulations. If he leased it for general purposes without knowing specifically that it would be used for trade with Iran, it would be unfair to apply the regulations. Surely that makes a complete farce of the whole matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that intervention. For two years of my life before coming to the House, I worked for the British India Steam Navigation Company, a subsidiary of P and O. I know how extremely complicated these matters can be in relation to the whole business of leasing ships in the Far East. The whole history of MacKenzie's—which later became British India—and other companies and the complications of P and O are such that it is difficult to identify precisely what, at any point in time, is the legal position of goods in a certain ship. That could become much more complicated if there was an enforced embargo, such as may follow from the proposition before us. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will expand on that point in his speech. It is an important issue of substance.
Before I continue to discuss amendment No. 4, I wonder whether the Minister is ready to answer—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the chartering of ships, I wish to say that he was right to point out the complexity of the chartering process. Contracts can be entered into up to a year ahead, or even longer. Whereas the contract may be placed a long time ahead and, ostensibly, would not be covered by the provisions that deny the charterer the right to continue in that business, the actual orders placed for dealing with Iran could come at a subsequent time. Would those be covered by the restrictive legislation that we are discussing?

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend was the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He asked whether such charterers would be covered by the restrictions. I do not know the answer, but I hope that the Minister, when he replies—


or possibly sooner—will give some answer. He may need help from civil servants in the Box, and I make no complaint about that. It is an important question. Is it now convenient for the Minister to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands)?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to amendment No. 4. I am not being difficult but, quite honestly, I am trying to relate his remarks to amendment No. 4, which states:
after ' goods ', insert ' (other than the products of oil companies).' 
What point is the hon. Gentleman making? It certainly has nothing to do with amendment No. 4.

Mr. Dalyell: I was referring to chemicals and the products of oil companies in connection with amendment No. 4. On amendment No. 2 and the question of services, we must consider competition with Japan. Japan is the key to the success of the United States sanctions policy. The trade between Iran and Japan last year was $925 million. In March of this year alone it was $239 million. I give these figures to show how trade with Japan has increased dramatically since the Iranian revolution.
Japanese Government officials have said that their sanctions would not cover small companies because Japan's six largest trading companies account for nearly 80 per cent. of exports to Iran.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Gentleman made the same point last night. Our evidence does not bear out his remarks. I would be grateful if he could give the House details of his evidence. We have no evidence that Japan intends to act through a small number of large firms. It has announced a set of measures against Iran which broadly reflects those announced by the European Foreign Ministers on 22 April. It has associated itself with the European statement, including those parts relating to economic sanctions.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this point, but I am a little puzzled by the evidence that he has produced. It may be that his

evidence relates to an earlier stage. Our evidence is that which I have given.

Mr. Dalyell: I refer to the Financial Times of 24 April, which quotes a Mr. Richard Hanson in Tokyo as saying:
Japan is expected today to adopt the two-part package of diplomatic and economic measures against Iran which was worked out by the European Community countries in Luxembourg on Tuesday. Nevertheless, there are signs that the Japanese are eager to try to save the joint petrochemical complex which Mitsui and Company is building at Badar Khomeini. Mitsui is to despatch Mr. Hideaki Yamashita, president of the Japanese partner company, Iran Chemical Development, to Iran for a lengthy stay.
The newspaper quotes Iran's acting Finance Minister, Mr. Salimi, as warning the Japanese Government that the future of the venture would be placed in jeopardy if Japan applied sanctions.
Is the Minister denying the report that 80 per cent. of Japanese trade with Iran is carried out by the six major companies? Is he denying that it is only the six major companies which will have sanctions applied to them?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried already to tell the hon. Gentleman of our evidence. We are in close touch with the Japanese on the matter. Our evidence, which is up to date, does not bear out the construction put by the hon. Gentleman on Japanese actions, which he has taken from certain newspaper cuttings.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall try to find the relevant cuttings. It is true that Iran's production now accounts for less than 5 per cent. of all non-Communist oil supplies. It is true that Iran's oil weapon is blunted and that a mild winter contributed to a fall of 8·5 per cent. in imports by the main industrial nations in the first quarter of this year as compared with 1979. With the general economic slowdown, the loss of Iranian oil could be weathered by industrial countries—that is, except for one, because Japan gets 10 per cent. of its oil from Iran, and the petrochemical complex costing $3 billion is the largest overseas project anywhere in the world on which Japan has embarked.
The question arises whether the Japanese will abide by sanctions. It was certainly the impression of some of our colleagues who were on a recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation that because Japan, more than any other industrial


country, was dependent on Iranian oil, it was very unlikely that it would do so. If the Government have evidence that Japan will abide by sanctions and carry them through, they should say so. But some of us think that it is very doubtful.

Mr. Russell Johnston: That is exactly what the Minister has just said. It is not for me to speak for the Minister, but a minute ago he said that his up-to-date understanding was that the Japanese were prepared to implement a package comparable with that of the EEC. What assurances does the hon. Gentleman want?

Mr. Dalyell: I think that it is extremely unlikely that Japan would enter into any kind of full co-operation along those lines, because it has a $3 billion petrochemical complex, which is 85 per cent. complete, at Bandar Khomeini.
Given the warning that I read out from Mr. Salimi, some of us think that it is very unlikely that the Japanese will jeopardise their biggest investment outside Japan—and that is the threat they have had—in order to go along with the sanctions policy.
Switzerland is one of the few lifelines to the West from Iran at the present time. On May 27, Switzerland may decide to follow the United States example, but trade between Switzerland and Iran has increased in the first three months of this year over 1979. In 1978, Switzerland exported only 13 per cent. of chemicals. In 1980, chemicals accounted for 35 per cent., suggesting that the Swiss will follow the United States void. Therefore, one must ask whether the Swiss will go along with the sanctions policy. Again, that represents another gap. Indeed, many of the developing nations, such as Singapore, South Korea and the Philippines, would be only too delighted to expand their exports with Iran, even if in theory their Governments would like to support the United States.
That is the situation we face. Last night, the Minister of State said:
We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. We do not intend to take measures that have the effect of delivering trade into the hands of our competitors".
In the circumstances that I have described, how can we be sure that that will be honoured? Some evidence must be

presented to the House to show that the measures to be taken will be at all effective. The Minister of State went on to refer to the example of Mozambique and Cuba, and he said:
one has only to study a little experience across the world, to know that there is no prosperity for Iran by hitching its economy to that of the East"—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916–18.]
However, what is to prevent firms from selling to East Germany or Czechoslovakia? Although it may be true that, at any rate in the short term, there are considerable problems for Iran in suddenly having to buy goods from Romania or East Germany, what is there to prevent British firms from selling goods which they would have sent to Iran to East Germany or Romania and having them transported by the Russian railway system? Again, that is an example of how unlikely it is that this policy will work.
That raises the whole question of the Eastern bloc. Tehran's long-term security rests on the willingness of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to replace Western companies. But, admittedly, some of those countries, do not have what the Iranians want. How will EEC countries know whether our exports to Eastern bloc countries are not passed on to Iran? What means of telling exist, or do we say to the Poles and the Czechs "You must not buy those goods in Britain as we suspect that you will be sending them to Iran "? Given the eagerness of Eastern bloc countries to get long-term oil contracts, particularly if deals are done on a barter basis, they have every incentive to get goods to Iran. That is the interest of the Eastern bloc countries.
5.15 pm
We must look at this against the fact that soon the Soviet Union will be a net importer and not a net exporter of oil. Therefore, it has every reason to get on terms with Iran.
With regard to the amendment dealing with transport, let us consider the position of Bulgaria. A Bulgarian lorry corn-many has 2,500 trucks operating to Iran and another 5,000 available. Its activity through Bazardam could certainly be stepped up by using the Turkish frontier crossings or, indeed, the Russian frontier crossings. Is not that just another example of the unreality of the proposals before


us? The route from the Soviet Union via Astara and the rail crossing point at Julfa could certainly be improved, and, indeed, is being improved. At present there is heavy congestion at Julfa, but that is the result of the need for full customs documentation rather than any lack of facilities. More than the present 250 wagons a day could be handled if the paperwork was done in Iran. That again is evidence that what is being proposed with regard to the transport of goods is unrealistic.
In 1978, exports from COMECON countries to Iran amounted to less than 10 per cent. of those from OECD countries. But last year they rose to 20 per cent. There is obviously some limit to the extent to which Iranian firms can switch from their ordinary suppliers, but once a market is lost it is difficult to regain it
I do not want to be too long—

Mr. Russell Johnston: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: Well, a number of the amendments are grouped, and my hon. Friends know very well that this is our only opportunity to have any kind of proper discussion of the factual basis of all this. As the hon. Gentleman knows, orders restricted to one and a half hours allow very little time to raise the details of the subject.
We must also consider the position and reaction of the Arabs. The idea that we can just go along with current contracts and have no new contracts excludes any notion of tit-for-tat. There is anxiety that other Middle Eastern countries will show, or be obliged by their neighbours to show, solidarity with Iran by imposing a counter-embargo. The fact is—it was not really mentioned on Second Reading, as it might have been—that the Gulf as a whole could be alienated. What happens when the western Gulf States appeal to Iran for solidarity? Has that question been considered properly? I suspect that it has not. We are not just dealing with Iran. We are dealing with a reaction throughout the Gulf States and we are dealing with the whole Islam reaction.
There was a recent Chatham House paper, which is probably known to the Foreign Office, by Valerie Yorke, prepared for the Royal Institute of International

Affairs. It was an interesting, revealing and deeply worrying paper. She states:
The Saudi monarchy and Gulf Emirs have lost confidence in America's ability to assist them against invasions, coups and revolution after the failure to help the Shah.
She argues that the Gulf rulers are not going along with sanctions and that they will want to reach an accommodation with the Ayatollah and other forces.
It is all very well talking of sanctions against Iran, but we should be under no misapprehension that we are putting in jeopardy our trade with the Arab world. That is a case that has been convincingly argued by the Chatham House paper. It is borne out by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Waltham Forest and for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who have recently returned from the Gulf area.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the desire of Arab countries to reach an accommodation with Iran leads them to take a sympathetic view towards Iran's taking of hostages. The interest of the Arab countries and the Arab world in the maintenance of international law and diplomatic rights and practices is as strong as Britain's. There is widespread understanding of Britain's support of international law. My hon. Friend discredits the Arab world if he suggests that it does not understand our position.

Mr. Dalyell: The fact remains that the Arab world has made it abundantly clear that it does not approve of a sanctions policy against Iran. I do not doubt that Arab Governments feel strongly about the taking of hostages. Incidentally, the Russian Government came out against it. I think that almost every Government in the world see the threat to civilised international relations in the taking of hostages.
We are under an illusion if we think that the Arab world goes along with the policy of economic sanctions against Iran. I am prepared to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) if he wishes to deny that throughout the Middle East and the Arab world there is little support for the policy of sanctions.

Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend is adopting the tactic of raising fanciful suppositions and inviting other hon. Members in the Chamber to shoot them down. It is up to him to prove his case and not for us to rebut it.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall continue to quote from Miss Yorke's paper. She states:
Iran's Revolution, now a year old, has unleashed destabilising forces in a region which supplies forty per cent of the West's oil needs. Undoubtedly it has marked a watershed in that country's relations with the West. But the most serious effect may still be to come. Iran's upheavals may compel the conservative rulers of the Gulf to adopt more nationalistic and more anti-Western policies in the interests of the survival of their regimes.
It is too early to assess the long-term consequences of the Revolution for these are still being played out, but it has already had a number of important regional and global effects. In February 1979, the Shah's ' pro-Western ' and largely secular regime was replaced by a non-aligned Islamic one led by Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran subsequently abandoned its regional security role. With weakened armed forces, it could no longer act as a buffer between the Soviet Union and the conservative regimes in the Gulf. Economic and political chaos, and then conservationist oil policies, created oil shortages and encouraged price rises; these in turn influenced the pricing and production policies of other members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Iran's relations with Western countries, and the United States in particular, became antagonistic because of their past association with the Shah. The rejection of internationally accepted rules (as in the seizure of American diplomatic hostages) deprived the West of ready means to reach an understanding with the new regime.
Khomeini's Islamic Republic has created a number of problems for Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states. Iran's withdrawal from its role as ' regional ' policeman has left them feeling more exposed.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, I fear, has not been able to persuade me that this is immediately relevant to any of the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Dalyell: It is, on the whole, a matter of trade and services. Of course, Mr. Godman Irvine. I bow to your ruling. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who has made a legitimate interruption, to discuss the issue with those of our colleagues who have recently returned from the Gulf. I urge him to read the Chatham House work on the subject, which must be well known to the Foreign Office.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan have both decided that security is best assured by keeping within the fold of majority Arab consensus and going along with Islamic solidarity. All the countries of the region deplore the prospects of concerted economic actions. They argue that the tightening of the screws can only increase instability in the region, to the detriment of existing regimes and to the advantage of the Soviet Union. The recent Islamabad conference showed the problem of Jerusalem to be more important to the participants than the Soviet action in Afghanistan.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Were any of these amendments being considered in Jerusalem?

Mr. Dalyell: I turn to banking, to which amendment No. 8 is directed. If the Government are serious about sanctions, why are banks and financial services excluded? An article on page 1 of the edition of The Times of last Friday states:
As for the exclusion of banking and financial services, it was insisted that voluntary and confidential arrangements seemed to be working and ought not to be disturbed.
Will the Government amplify that? Why is it that the banking arrangements should not be disturbed?

Mr. Donald Stewart: The simple reason is that the British banks are coining the business that belonged to the Americans. They have done so merrily since the affair started.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask the Government to amplify their view. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) agrees with me on few things in life, but in this instance we seem to be relatively united. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is true not only of British banks but of Swiss and other banks. It is an issue to which the Government should respond.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull. Central (Mr. McNamara) asked what was meant by guidelines. He asked whether they would be merely exhortations or whether they amounted to more. No mention was made of guidelines before the Bill came before the House of Commons. If the guidelines are to be made known to the Committee while we are


considering the Bill in Committee, perhaps the Minister will intervene to explain their nature.

Mr. Dalyell: It is in my recollection that when the term "guidelines" was mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central asked what it meant. Will they be more than exhortations as in industrial legislation? We have had enough difficulty about guidelines. We must be clear about their nature.

Mr. Heffer: If there are written guidelines, we should know what they are. It is the Minister's duty to give those guidelines, so that when these amendments are being discussed we can have them in front of us and can consider them. That is the only way that business can be conducted fairly.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday:
Restrictions…have been in force since the end of last year…The restrictions have been in force on the basis of guidance to major British institutions. They have worked satisfactorily and it does not seem sensible to legislate where an existing arrangement is working quite well."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 920.]
What guidance? My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central asked whether that power was legislative, a word in the ear or a bit of arm twisting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) asked a relevant question. The Government should answer it. I hope that a Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and give some guidance. I promise to shorten my speech if the Minister will take up the question of guidance. Can he be tempted? He cannot.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that guidance is given not only to banking institutions but also to the public? One of my constituents may lose his job. He may be made redundant if an engineering order is not fulfilled. He will want to know what sacrifices the banks are making. He wants that guidance to be made clear, so that he can see whether he is getting equal treatment.

Mr. Dalyell: That point raises the whole issue of parity of sacrifices. If people are made redundant at the Talbot plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, or if they are made redundant in Liverpool, Workington or—dare I say it?—in Caithness and Sutherland, they will want to know why. Perhaps famous Caithness glass found its way to pre-revolutionary Iran.
What will the Iranians do about moving any of their $15 billion reserves? Most of those reserves are not subject to blocking orders. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) is nodding. Very little has been said about the role of those reserves. It is estimated that $4,000 million of Iranian deposits is in EEC banks. It is estimated that $1,500 million is in London and that about $1,000 million is in Paris. An attempt was made to place huge sums of deutschemarks. However, that was thwarted by the German authorities.
What is the Government's policy towards reserves held in London? Amendment No. 8 covers this point. We have the Minister's agreement on that. There is $3,800 million of frozen Iranian deposits with European subsidiaries of American banks. Several legal actions are being fought in London and other European centres, to determine whether American subsidiaries must follow instructions from American authorities. This question was partly dealt with last night.
Which banks will frighten depositors from oil-exporting countries? Until the Government clarify the position of German banks, and until they tell us whether those banks have gone further than British banks, we shall not be much wiser. Apparently, Bonn has pressed a four-point programme on the banks. The first point concerns the cessation of new credits to Iran's State or quasi-State institutions. The second point requires that no new accounts should be opened for official Iranian depositors. The third point seeks an undertaking not to increase Iran's non-dollar deposits. The fourth point suggests moving swiftly, on the slightest pretext, to declare Iranian borrowing in default.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) raised the


subject of banks. He asked for clarification about the position of British branches of American banks. The President of the United States has frozen financial transactions between American banks and Iran. However, the Bill will leave banks in Britain free.
Under the Bill, would British branches of American banks become liable? The Minister said that this question trenched on an old argument between ourselves and the Americans about the extent of their jurisdiction. I do not blame him, but he sought to pass the buck on to the Minister of State, Department of Trade. To his credit, die latter returned to this subject yesterday, at the beginning of his speech. I shall quote not from Hansard but from the Library copy. The Minister said:
I wish to begin my remarks by dealing with one or two of the specific points and questions that have been raised during the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) asked what would be the position of the branches of United States banks in the United Kingdom. Under United Kingdom law, the law could apply to banks, but, in practice, it would have virtually no application because contracts for banking and financial services are excluded. Under United States law, the law has attempted to require United States banks in the United Kingdom to freeze Iranian assets. That is not covered in the Bill.
Why is it not covered in the Bill?
The Minister continued:
Iran has brought numerous actions in the courts to have its assets released, and the question is at present sub judice.
I realise that we cannot get involved in matters that are sub judice. However, the Minister of State, Department of Trade will recognise that the hon. Member for Peterborough raised a substantial point. We need far more explanation than was given in a necessarily short speech at the end of a debate that had a 12 o'clock deadline.
We shall not have another occasion for discussing this issue. One-and-a-half-hour orders may be brought forward, and we shall not have time to discuss these issues. This is the last time that the House will be able to go into these issues in depth.

Mr. Parkinson: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and to revive what I hope are his flagging spirits. However, he has answered his own question once again. The matter is sub judice. As he

has said, we cannot comment further. As a matter of interest, I shared a platform earlier this afternoon—it now seems like several months ago—with the silk who is representing the banks. He said that the issue will not be settled yet. Complicated and technical legal arguments are involved. Actions will come before the courts in November.

Mr. Dalyell: Those actions may come before the courts in November, but the policy will have gelled by then. That is part of the trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has had some experience in the Department of Industry. He knows what we are on about. When thinking of the courts, one sometimes thinks of the Dickensian circumlocution office. These matters may be very complicated, but jobs are at stake. The issue is therefore urgent. It is all very well to say that the courts are dealing with this issue. I am not fishing for an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but there is one law for lawyers and another for the rest of us. Lawyers take their time. Meanwhile, jobs and policies are at stake. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, especially as I had not intimated that I wished to rise. He is absolutely right, because, in layman's language, this is a glorious enabling Bill. Once the Government have got it through, they can do all sorts of things with it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the issues must be decided here and now. It does not matter about Orders in Council, which will come too late anyway, and even in future debates in the House the Government will keep referring back to the decision that the House takes today. The Government must not shuffle off their responsibilities for a second day running. The Minister of State tried to evade and avoid matters last night. He must not do it tonight. We must know tonight, here and now.

Mr. Dalyell: All these points really must be followed up, because there is not another opportunity, and on this occasion there is plenty of time. I am not spinning it out for the sake of spinning it out. The truth of the matter is that the Government business managers, in selecting this day,


knew very well that many of my colleagues who would have wanted to ask questions would not be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has said that he would have made a speech for an hour, as would my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). All of them have parades and various engagements tomorrow. Do not tell me that the Government business managers did not know perfectly well what they were up to. [Interruption.] It may be that we shall have both today and tomorrow, because this Bill is much more important than the Gas Bill. [Interruption.] I did not hear the sotto voce interruption from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. But, seriously, this is the last occasion on which we can probe these matters, and, coming back to amendment No. 8, it is the last occasion on which we can look at matters of compensation.
There is a great deal of confusion about the nature of the proposed boycott. It is all very well, but what is the position on compensation? Do we take it that people who lose money as a direct result of observing a boycott will not be able to claim compensation from the Government? The Department of Trade has said on this that it has never heard of anyone receiving compensation for complying with an official embargo.
The truth is that a number of firms have been geared over some years to a particular market. I shall not speak in detail in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, who has been in contact with George Turnbull and many of whose constituents work on the so-called Peycan project at Talbot. He will correct me if I am wrong. The truth is that if Talbot does not get some kind of compensation if it is excluded, it is in considerable trouble. My hon. Friend may want to make this point for himself. If so, I shall naturally give way to him. The point was shoved aside last night, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), the former convener of stewards at Chrysler, wanted to interrupt on precisely this point—he has asked me to say that he is extremely bothered about the position—there was no reply. Therefore, in the Minister's reply, I hope that there will

be a proper discussion of the Talbot situation.
What happens to current contracts in relation to compensation if the Iran customers' reaction is not to go along meekly with the plans of the West and the countries which are imposing sanctions? Their reaction will be simply tit for tat. I do not like to call it the stubborn Iranian question, but, of course, it is. If the Minister were a stubborn Iranian he would not sit by and dutifully say that he would honour current contracts to the letter, albeit that sanctions were threatened in the future.
The truth is that we are trying to have our cake and eat it. Simply to say "We shall see that there are certain exceptions for current contracts, but, of course, we shall not have new contracts" means that very soon, because it takes two to make a bargain, others will react in a human way. I ask the Minister: If he were an Iranian in this position, what on earth would he do? He would not go along meekly with a proposal put forward by his adversaries. It may be a rhetorical question, but it is a valid question because we are dealing with human nature.
5.45 pm
Human nature leads me directly, again on amendment No. 8, to the export credit guarantee situation. Somehow or other, firms have found that most of their customers have managed to pay for goods received before the revolution. It looked as if chaos caused to records by banks being attacked and disrupted during the overthrow of the Shah would lead to nonpayment. That is how it looked. The City of London thought that £800 million was at risk. Incidentally, the Export Credits Guarantee Department never disagreed with that figure. That was the doomsday figure which never materialised. The ECGD thought that it might have had to pay out £800 million. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but in fact it has paid out £80 million; and even under the ECGD investment insurance scheme losses have been remarkably low. I think I am right in saying that only 14 companies are said to have been involved, with a total of £12 million at risk. This is a very different scenario from the losses that have been suffered in


other countries where there has been political upheaval.
Therefore, in relation to those supplies which are not covered by the embargo, what is to be the policy of the ECGD? Indeed, one must couple with that the question whether the Exchange Control Act 1947 and the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 are consistent with the Treaty of Rome, because this raises very serious questions of our relations with our European partners in this matter.
It is the view of the Financial Times' writers on industry, from their telephoning around, that a partial recovery in British sales to Iran after the period following the deposition of the Shah will be wiped out by the proposed EEC embargo. That is the view that is being put forward. British sales to Iran in the first quarter of 1980 amounted to some £90 million. If this trade were extended, as it would have been throughout the year, this would take the total for 1980 to double last year's figure. Although about half of the first quarter figure consists of Talbot car kits and Land Rovers, this leaves a significant rise in other goods, and these include spare parts and equipment such as generators and pumps.
Talk as one may about completing contracts, the fact is that placings of new orders will go elsewhere and the recovery will be cancelled out. Once we have put on sanctions, do not imagine that we shall get back into the market just like that.
This links the question that is bothering a number of firms—the problem of under-invoicing. The Bani-Sadr proposal that a Government agency should be responsible for all purchases from abroad is designed in Iran as an anti-inflationary measure, but it is also to cut out the practice of under-invoicing to avoid customs duties. It is reckoned there that the bazaar importers have been paying possibly only half of their duties.
It is in these circumstances that I ask whether the Government are satisfied with the exchange control regulations which they are hoping to apply to Iran if the Bill becomes an Act.
We understand the Americans' position, but we should be clear about what is being asked. United Kingdom firms,

which are the most competent in the market, are becoming increasingly confident about the trade resurgence. In 1979, United Kingdom sales to Iran were down by £500 million to £232 million, which was a fall of 69 per cent. If the current recovery continued, exports would be worth at least £353 million and probably £400 million by 1980. In spite of the turmoil of the revolution, we have nearly recovered to the amount that we were selling to Iran under the Shah. That is to the credit of British industry.

Mr. James Lamond: I admire the meticulous way in which my hon. Friend has prepared his material. I agree with most of his argument. However, he paints a rosy picture of the future, which he imagines would continue without the Bill. My hon. Friend reads many foreign newspapers. In the San Francisco Examiner on 15 May there was an article that indicated that the United States had prepared the ground for intervention in Iran by posting in a number of special agents disguised as business men. That is now known to the Government in Iran as a result of the abortive attempt to rescue the hostages. It will make business opportunities in Iran difficult in the future. Business men will be under suspicion and their opportunity to obtain new business will have diminished. I do not want to detract from my hon. Friend's argument—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions need not be lengthy, even when speeches are.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend's intervention raises fundamental issues that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) yesterday. Events did not begin with the taking of hostages. Agents were unwisely infiltrated by the Americans into Iran.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to one or other of the amendments?

Mr. Dalyell: There is no doubt that there was infiltration. Many of the present rulers of Iran come from families who suffered loss at the hands of the Shah's secret police. That is part of the background to the argument. My hon. Friend's comments about phoney business men are extremely relevant. I


have neglected my duty in failing to read the San Francisco Examiner. Nevertheless, I take my hon. Friend's point.
The recovery of the United Kingdom business with Iran will come to a grinding halt if we have sanctions. What has America to lose with trade sanctions? In December, America's trade to Iran was down to $6·6 million and in January $6·3 million, compared with $3,684 million in 1978.
The Foreign Secretary was in Washington on 4 May. He was asked on ABC TV whether he would support new military measures. He is reported as replying that Britain would have to be convinced that such measures would be likely to result in the hostages being freed, and he said that he thought that that was rather unlikely. Lord Carrington went on to say that our hearts were with the Americans. However, he made the point that sanctions, particularly by Britain and Italy, would place an infinitely heavier burden on Britain and Italy than on the United States. He told the American viewers that they should not underestimate what America wanted us to do or our willingness to help.
We should be clear that there is not equality of sacrifice. The sacrifice in terms of trade and jobs will be borne most heavily by the EEC and Western Europe, particularly Britain and Italy.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the inequality of sacrifice. Whatever may be the attitude in Washington, American private enterprise will regard our sacrifice as its opportunity. It will find ways to fill the gap through the circuitous routes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Dalyell: Already, through Dubai and other ports, American goods are reported to be finding their way to Iran. For the same reasons as British industry, American private enterprise does not want to neglect its contacts. Once there is a technical cut-off, it is difficult to re-establish that technology. Once the Iranians switch to technology from Leipzig, engineering design from Dresden or trucks from Romania, they will not revert to their previous suppliers or snub those who helped them in a time of adversity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East talked of the Americans preparing the ground. American business men have been preparing the technical ground. There is evidence that certain items in the chemical industry which can be obtained only from the United States are still finding their way to Tabriz and other Iranian cities. We are being asked to support our friends, but they are not being as vigilant as they might. I should like convincing evidence that there is an effective American boycott. I believe that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton will agree that there is not an effective American boycott. Although American industry no longer has the $3,600 million trade with Iran that it had in 1978, it is nevertheless taking scrupulous care not to sever existing lines of communication. We have to talk frankly to the Americans. We have to tell them that before asking us to make lasting sacrifices they should be certain that the boycott of American goods will be watertight.
On the linked question of the renewal of contracts, I listened carefully at 11.55 pm last night to the Minister of State, in his winding-up speech, say that each case must be judged on its merits. What are the criteria for merit?

6 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in judging each case on its merits, there is a danger of unfairness towards those British subjects who are at the moment in Iran, trying to obtain or extend contracts? They are anxious, as are their families, about their safety. At the same time, they are trying to negotiate contracts that may or may not be vetoed, because there is no clear information about what will be approved by the Government under possible regulations. It this not a very unsatisfactory situation? Would it not be more satisfactory if the Government spelt out in debate which contracts will be approved, which can be renegotiated or reviewed, and which will be firmly vetoed?

Mr. Dalyell: There is a profound obligation on the Government to spell out what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North suggests. Although the Government may say that the matter was covered in the Minister's winding-up speech, one finds, looking closely at the


Minister's remarks, that the valid point is not answered. The Minister said:
There has been a great deal of talk about reluctance—reluctance to implement these measures. I spent a great deal of my time last year travelling round the world trying to boost British trade. No one is more reluctant than I am to see us turning our backs on an important market. My Department will have to administer these sanction. It is not a job to which we are looking forward".
That is the understatement of the year, I suspect, from the Government Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman went on:
In my view, there are three compelling reasons why we must give the Bill a Second Reading. We must drive home to the Iranians the consequences of their actions in seizing and holding the hostages. We are not just emphasing a minor point of principle. We considered this principle so important last week that we were prepared to put at risk the lives of the cream of our security forces to rescue Iranian hostages. This is a matter of prime importance.

Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow. I was under the impression that in Committee it is not in order to make a Second Reading speech and certainly not in order to make someone else's Second Reading speech.

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have only just come into the Chair, as he will have noted. I have not heard what the hon. Member for West Lothian, (Mr. Dalyell) has been saying for the last two hours.

Mr. Dalyell: Are you suggesting, Mr. Weatherill, that I should repeat my remarks for your benefit?

The Chairman: Certainly not. Since the hon. Gentleman tempts me, I would say only that two hours spent moving an amendment is overdoing it a bit.

Mr. Dalyell: The problem, Mr. Weatherill, is that this is really the last occasion on which there can be any detailed examination of issues that are far more important to this country than the Gas Bill or any of tomorrow's business. One has to take one's opportunities in the House of Commons. This is the last opportunity for a proper examination. If asked how the matter should be properly discussed, I would be the first to say that I am not persuaded that discussion on the Floor of the House is the most

satisfactory method of scrutinising seriously the issues at stake. It might have been preferable, had there been time, to have a Select Committee and a public hearing where all the issues could have been properly examined.
Hon. Members have a duty to carry out a proper examination of issues. We have to use the tools that are given us. Unless we take advantage of the tools that are available, there will be no proper scrutiny at all. The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, who has been in the Chair, is very vigilant, as are my colleagues. I think I can therefore claim that I have not been guilty of repetition and that I have put forward valid questions that might have been better presented in a Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Those of my colleagues who have been present say "Hear, hear". That is not sheer politeness. If my colleagues were critical, they would be the first to give me the proverbial bird and to give an enlarged yawn. There has been no waste of time. I have put these matters as succinctly as I can. I challenge any hon. Member to say that I have been irrelevant or time-wasting on any issue. I am approaching the end of my remarks.
I have to ask to what extent Orders in Council would be required to implement any specific sanctions that were decided. Would they come into force on being laid or would there be a time gap? My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is concerned about the motor industry, as, also, am I and other hon. Members with constituents who work for British Leyland. We know that the Orders in Council are of considerable and critical importance.
Will Ministers confirm that under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 they already have power to interrupt existing contracts with Iran if there were a change of policy and if they thought it necessary? There are still considerable doubts about the whole issue of renewal and about what is an existing contract, a new contract and a renewed contract. My hon. Friends the Members for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) and for Nuneaton have first-hand knowledge of the engineering industry. They know that what is termed a new contract is a very slippery definition. When one enters into some kind


of package deal, it is difficult to know what element of that package is new business and what is business that legitimately follows from previous business. I should like the Government lawyers to explain this matter.
I should like to end on a note of agreement with the Opposition Front Bench. Should not total trade policy be taken to the United Nations? We shall return, on amendments Nos. 36 and 37, put forward by the official Opposition, to the question of EEC countries. But there can be no sensible policy on sanctions without full and meaningful United Nations backing. The United Nations should put its deeds where its mouth is and do something about the matter. From remarks made yesterday and today there is clearly no chance of that kind of enthusiasm. Although one deplores what has happened to the American hostages, there is no international will to make the kind of proposals that the Government have put before the House work in any meaningful circumstances.
I offer no apology for trying to conduct a serious and courteous examination of the issues. Unless we make the most of the opportunity to examine the grave issues that are at stake for this country, we shall drift into a situation of deeper involvement for which we shall have only ourselves to blame.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am not sure how to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in his fairly lengthy excursion, but my speech will differ from his in that it will be a great deal shorter.
I address myself to amendment No. 3, on transport, amendment No. 4, on oil, amendment No. 8, on banking, amendment No. 10, on international obligations, and amendment No. 11, on compensation. I do so because since 1974 I have had the honour to be the chairman of the British-Iranian parliamentary group in this House and during that period I have frequently travelled to Iran to promote British trade and investment. I declare an interest, in that I have a directorship of a large British engineering group that sells goods from the Midlands to Iran. I have also assisted with British transport enterprises in Iran and British banking enterprises there.
Like my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I deeply regret the necessity

for this legislation. Both he and I have spent a great deal of time promoting British trade, jobs and profits, and it is, therefore, with a sense of sadness that we see a great deal of hard work in both private and Government sectors going down the drain with the Bill.
I am not only sad; I am a litte sceptical. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian at the beginning of his speech when he said that it was most unlikely that any of the Bill's provisions would be effective. I have spent enough time in Iran and the Gulf States to know that the attempt of the United States to prevent goods and services from getting into Iran has already proved ineffective, because of the numerous back doors through which many merchants, Americans included, are continuing to convey American goods to Iran.
I regret the Bill and I doubt whether it will succeed. Nevertheless, I support it for the two reasons that were put forward in the debate last night. First, we must record our abhorrence of the Iranian treatment of the American hostages, and this is the only way available to us. Secondly, we must, as a matter of national interest, support the United States.
I turn specifically to the amendments and confine myself to asking a number of specific questions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose task I do not envy. Amendment No. 3 deals with transport. No doubt this will prevent British airliners from continuing to land in Tehran or Abadan. Has any calculation been made by British Airways of the revenue consequences, and, if so, can my hon. Friend give us an indication of these? It is important to our relations with the United States to demonstrate how much we are doing in the interests of the Alliance. I do not ask my hon. Friend for precise answers, because this will arise only as and when orders are made. However, the House will expect to probe the cost to our airlines.
6.15 pm
Amendment No. 4 deals with the oil companies. As, when and if the appropriate order is made, will my hon. Friend undertake to give an estimate of the consequences for British Petroleum? I am not sure whether oil is excluded, but the amendment proposes that it should be. I ask my hon. Friend to consult BP, because at present it is one of the few oil


companies in the world that is short of crude oil. It has lost oil in Nigeria and the Middle East; therefore, it is a matter of consequence to have an estimate of the loss of Iranian crude oil.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the banks. I reiterate the question put by the hon. Member for West Lothian, who asked about the position of Iranian reserves held in London. I believe that the Bill would have been better had it been shorter. The one clause that would have been better left out is that which excludes the banks, to which amendment No. 8 specifically refers. If it is the case that the guidelines—the practice of the banks—are sufficient and, therefore, they do not need to be covered, what is the point of specifically excluding them on the face of the Bill? The Bill gives general powers to the Government. It says:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision in relation to contracts in any way relating to or connected with Iran, being either contracts for services or contracts for the sale, supply or transport of goods, as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient".
That is a general power. It could be applied to banks or anything else. It would be open to the Government to exclude banks if they wished to do so. The Government are taking powers to do anything that they believe to be expedient or necessary. Therefore, they can deal with the banks or not deal with the banks, as they judge expedient. I can only conclude that the Government, for the most part, think that it is inappropriate to apply the powers to the banks, save only through the guidelines. If that is their thinking, what is the point of having the exclusion on the face of the Bill?
In a matter of this sort, it would be far simpler to bring to the House a simple enabling Bill and then to rely on specific orders for specific matters. If the Government did not think that the banks needed to be covered, no order would be required.
Amendment No. 10 deals with international obligations. I hope that there is no intention to apply sanctions to the international rescue operations that are so frequently needed in Iran. Very few countries have such a propensity for terrifying earthquakes as does Iran. From time to time we hear of whole towns

and villages being destroyed and tens of thousands of people being made homeless. It is a remarkable feature of our relations with Iran that over the years we have provided considerable aid to deal with natural calamities. It has stood our country in good stead that we have responded to natural disasters in a generous way.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that neither the United States nor ourselves will allow the sanctions legislation to stand in the way of international rescue operations. My hon. Friend may say that food and medicines are excluded, but there are many other items, such as blankets, that can be of assistance in international rescue operations.
I must make my only contentious remarks on amendment No. 11, which proposes that if there is a failure to secure a contract as a result of the legislation, those who are made redundant or put on short time should receive compensation. It is the sheerest humbug for those who have put their names to that amendment to make such a proposition. It will be impertinent of them to move it.
Labour Members frequently demanded that trade with Iran should be cut, because they did not like the Shah. At that time, no tears were shed about the difficulties of our exporters and no hon. Members made two-hour speeches about the loss of production schedules or the difficulties that our industries would face. There were no demands for compensation for those made redundant.
Labour Members took a different view of the Shah and were for ever demanding the very sanctions against Iran that they are now opposing.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Members who are associated with the amendment. Will he name one of those hon. Members who did what he alleges? Is he saying that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) called for sanctions against the Shah?
On the question of attitudes, have not a number of Conservative Members said, in debates on Rhodesian sanctions, that they are opposed to any economic sanctions? Yet they are bringing forward the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Within the British-Iranian parliamentary group we have had many debates on that specific matter. The hon. Member for West Lothian is not a signatory to amendment No. 11. I am addressing my remarks to those who have signed that amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The amendment stands in my name, and when it originally appeared on the Amendment Paper it was in my name only. Can the hon. Gentleman quote one instance of my having done the things that he accuses me of doing?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not intend to get into that argument with the hon. Gentleman. He knows that during the long period of the Shah's regime there were numerous debates in the House, in Committee and outside on the question whether Britain should continue to trade with the Shah's regime, which many people thought was tyrannical, corrupt and damaging to the cause of progress for the Iranian people. They demanded that we should stop the exports of arms and engineering back-up facilities. When talking about a large tank programme or an arms complex, hon. Members should remember that our engineering industries produce conveyor lines and electronic systems that are not armaments but are critical to those industries.
It is ironic that those who oppose the sanctions proposed in the Bill demanded that jobs should be lost, that export contracts should be stopped and that no compensation should be paid, because they disagreed with the Shah's regime. The Shah's regime may have done a number of things, but it never held hostages against international law. It is therefore humbug for hon. Members to have tabled amendment No. 11.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I must conclude. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
I regret the necessity for the Bill, but I support it for the reasons that I have outlined. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will tell us that no omnibus order will be made but that any order will be precise and related to the specific goods and services that the Government seek to prevent being exported to Iran. With an omnibus order we shall

not have an opportunity, within the one and a half hours that will be allowed for the debate, for the proper examination that the House should give to such matters.
I hope that my hon. Friend will also be able to tell us that there is no question of orders being laid unless our friends, allies and competitors are taking the same line, and that no orders will be brought forward unless he is satisfied that every diplomatic avenue has been exhausted. One great advantage of the Bill is that it may strengthen the arm of those who are seeking a solution that will make the powers provided in the Bill unnecessary.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The attack by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was grossly unfair to the hon. Members who have signed amendment No. 11. I cannot see among those who have signed the amendment the name of any hon. Member who has argued for general trade sanctions against the Shah's regime.
A number of us were critical of the the arms sales to the Shah's regime, just as we have been critical of arms sales to other people and critcal of the whole armaments industry. We have argued consistently not only that we ought to cut our arms sales but that we should ensure that those in British industry had alternative useful jobs as a necessary compensation.
It is ironic that some of those who defended the arms sales to the Shah's regime have seen some of the arms used for purposes that they do not like. Of course, if we sell arms it is difficult to guarantee that the circumstances in which they will be used will be circumstances of which we approve. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that there were proposals for other sanctions against the Shah is grossly unfair.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman propose that the Government should have gone for a general enabling Bill. It is unsatisfactory to give Ministers powers to do what they like. If we followed that line, we could end up with Parliament meeting just after a general election, passing a short Bill providing that the Government could do what they liked for the next five years, and all hon. Members going home.
It is important to spell out on the face of a Bill the intentions of the Government and to make sure that regulations merely carry out the details and do not set out wide areas of policy.
I wish to speak in support of amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. There is considerable concern in Stockport, both in large firms, such as Mirless Blackstone, which may find big orders being put in jeopardy because of the Bill, and in small companies that may be directly affected or affected as subcontractors.
The people of Stockport have no basic objection to a boycott, as they demonstrated in the nineteenth century during the period of the cotton famine at the time of the American Civil War. However, they want to know whether a boycott will be of any use and what is to be its direct purpose. They are particularly unhappy that even by reading the Bill they cannot find out what is proposed.
There are those in Stockport who have had friends and relatives in Iran trying to negotiate, renew or continue contracts over the past six months. They have been concerned about the well-being of those people and their safety, in the light of television programmes and newspaper headlines that have appeared in this country. They want to know whether all that effort and all that worry were in vain, and they would like to be able to see, in the Bill or in a clear statement by the Government, precisely what is intended.
6.30 pm
Of course, those who may be contemplating having to go out to Iran in the next few weeks to continue negotiations for contracts will want to know whether all their efforts will be entriely wasted or whether they can go ahead. They are also concerned about the implications for future years, and whether this measure will blight trade for a long time ahead.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the small companies in Stockport see that they are under threat from small companies in Japan? My hon. Friend was in the Chamber when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office challenged me on my statement that only six major Japanese companies were affected. Because of the wealth of material at my disposal I could not immediately find the statement,

but I can now quote from The Times of 25 April 1980. It says:
Japanese Government officials said the sanctions would not cover small companies because Japan's six largest trading companies account for nearly 80 per cent. of exports to Iran.
The measures also exclude exports of food, chinaware, general merchandise".
If British small companies, including those in Stockport, are affected and small companies in Japan are not affected—if The Times report under the bye-line "Peter Hazelhurst, Tokyo, April 24" is correct—are not our firms at a disadvantage?

Mr. Bennett: I think that our firms are at a complete disadvantage. I think that the small firm is also at a major disadvantage, because it cannot be sure what is happening and it does not have within its staff anyone who can afford to be an expert on the regulations. The staff find it hard enough to find their way through the normal import and export regulations without trying to produce someone who is an expert in this sort of area.
What they are looking for from the Government is a clear statement so that they may know what they are entitled to do. The Government are supposed to be concerned to help the small business man, but from the way the Bill is presented and the way the debate has gone it seems to me that they are not giving people clear guidance about what is happening. I think that many people are worried that the Government will come in at the end and veto contracts rather than give them guidance at the start. Most small business men feel very resentful about the amount of work that they have to put in when they do not get a contract in the end. They will feel even more resentful if, having got a contract, they find that the Government have stopped it without having told them at the start that they were wasting their time.
Certainly people in Stockport are very concerned whether or not the banks are to be included. I understand that the Government are really saying that they are already getting the co-operation of the banks, but I think that it is important that the effect on the banks is seen, because it is not easy for my constituents, who could well be asked to work short time or could lose their jobs, to see what sacrifice is being made by the banks.

Mr. Parkinson: It might help the hon. Gentleman if I explained it to him like this. The banks have already effectively stopped taking business from Iran and have done so from the beginning of this year; they have not extended further credit or accepted any further deposits; they have frozen their position. They are already in the position in which the hon. Gentleman is scared that some of his manufacturing companies might be; they are not accepting any contracts, and future contracts started for them in January.

Mr. Bennett: But as far as the continuing contracts are concerned they are all right, and as far as the freezing of assets is concerned those assets go on bringing them interest and money, so that their position is very different from that of a firm that is dependent on individual contracts. However, I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I do not suppose it will convince many of my constituents.
The next question concerns amendment No. 9, which deals with the renewal or extension of contracts. I hope that the Government can be specific about this, because there is a whole series of contracts in which there is a clause providing that a new contract can be worked out if everybody is agreed and a price can be fixed, and so on. Sometimes the wording is pretty specific, but sometimes it is fairly vague—a matter of little more than a general feeling of agreement between the parties that if everything goes well the contract will be continued. I believe that it is important that on the face of the Bill rather than in the regulations it is made clear what is involved.
Amendment No. 10 deals with the question of international obligations. I do not want to develop that much further, but I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear, where there are over-flying rights, questions of air safety, and so on, how far these will be involved in any sanctions.
The final question concerns compensation, and it seems to me that this is the most difficult one. If we want to get the hostages released, however, it is necessary to say that there should be equality of sacrifice and effort. It is particularly

important that that sacrifice be shared by everybody in this country and in other countries that are participating. What worries my constituents is that at the moment there is not a great deal of evidence that that sacrifice will be equally shared. If they are to be made redundant or if there is to be a loss of jobs, that ought to be taken specifically into account.
I appreciate that this is a very difficult area. It is easy enough for a company to say that it would have got a contract but for this, but it may well be that in 10 years' time the company could still be saying that it did not get a contract because of the hard feeling that existed. This is one of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to earlier. But there are some areas where it can be shown specifically that jobs have been lost because of lost contracts, and the Government ought to be looking very hard at ways in which they can help those companies to find alternative markets or to compensate them.
I accept the arguments about other parts of the world and I would argue strongly that if sanctions of this sort are applied the community has a duty to make sure that people do not suffer as a result. It may well be that if the companies with which I am concerned in Stockport were facing a booming world market they would be in a position to pick and choose. Unfortunately, at the moment they are not, and orders lost in this situation may be crucial to them.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I call to the hon. Gentleman's mind, because of the comparability here, what happened in the case of Chile. Numerous British jobs were lost, and contracts were lost, because the aircraft engines that the Chilean Government had ordered and paid for were not delivered, owing to an upwelling of political sentiment in this country Does the hon. Gentleman suggest, as a matter of principle, that the taxpayer should become liable because of an up-welling of political sentiment, on one side of the House of Commons or the other, that leads to a breach of contract?

Mr. Bennett: It seems to me that we ought to accept responsibility. I do not think it is reasonable for us to argue


that somebody else ought to be making the sacrifice rather than us. That is the danger of this measure; it is up to somebody else to make the sacrifice. It is a fairly important principle that those who ask people to make sacrifices ought to be prepared to make those sacrifices themselves and that there ought to be some equality of sacrifice. It seems to me, from the way the Bill is presented at the moment and from the negotiations with our so-called allies, that there is not a great deal of evidence that there will be equality of sacrifice.
I hope, Mr. Weatherill, that you will allow separate votes on amendments Nos. 9 and 11. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I and, I am sure, the vast majority of my constituents condemn the attitude of the Iranian Government and that our opposition to the Bill is not to condone what they are doing but simply to argue that what we need are effective measures rather than ones that appear to many of us to be a sham and to have little substance.

Mr. Alan Clark: I shall speak to amendment No. 10, which refers to the aspect of international obligations. In earlier exchanges it was mooted that this amendment might allow fairly wide latitude to those of us who did not manage to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in the Second Reading debate.
The element in the Bill that I welcome and that would be enhanced by acceptance of amendment No. 10 is its frailty and imprecision. By simply paving the way for a series of enabling orders it amounts to little more than a gesture. The inclusion of the amendment would make it possible for the emissaries of the Foreign Office to get out of practically any requirement that might later be imposed upon them in enforcing what is alleged to be the purpose of the Bill.
It might be thought tactless to draw attention to this. The Foreign Office might not welcome the fact that we have rumbled this so early on, but it is appropriate to get the issue out of the way now, because circumstances might change. In the one and a half hours allowed for debate when an Order in Council is put before the House, if we adopt a hypocritical attitude to the Bill at this stage we might then be asked to eat our words and give greater strength

or teeth to the present completely impotent document.
If we included paragraph (c) we should be able to tell the Iranians that the Bill was pure shadow boxing, for the purpose of presenting a temporary facade of conformity with the Alliance. It is necessary only to look at the provisions to know that nothing will happen and that trade will proceed as we all wish. There should be no question of substitution, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put it. That dangerous element, to which he drew our attention in discussing other amendments, can be short-circuited by explaining that with these three exclusions the Bill is worth so little that it need not worry anyone.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my hon. Friend describe the sort of international obligation that he has in mind?

Mr. Clark: In this context, the very imprecision of the amendment seems to me to be an advantage. By being so widely drawn it will allow our negotiators to exclude at will whatever they choose.
We have to take care that the Bill is, in essence, no more than a piece of shadow boxing, because it is not even in the interests of the United States. The purpose of Iranian sanctions is to make conceivable the re-election of the most disastrous incumbent of the White House since President Harding, and that probably is not in the interest of the Americans.
The Bill interferes in the internal political arrangements of the United States and Iran. It is in all our interests to ensure, by such amendments as we can impose upon it, that its effectiveness is so reduced that we shall never be called upon by Orders in Council to give it the force that it was originally conceived to possess.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The problem with the amendments is that their whole purpose is to make the Bill ineffective. They are not amendments, in the sense that if they were accepted they would negate not just part of the Bill but the whole purpose of the Bill. Our arguments are not about the amendments but about the general purpose of the Bill.
The argument about transportation was dwelt upon at some length by the hon.


Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He said that unless there were agreements with Turkey—not to mention the presence of many willing Bulgarian lorry drivers anxious to transport goods across Bulgaria—and the countries that border upon Iran to prevent their importing the goods and then transporting them to Iran, the whole object of the exercise would be vitiated.
As the Minister said in his intervention, there is a great deal of truth in that The Bill does not pretend to deal with such a matter. If that is advanced as an argument of substance against the effectiveness, apart from the appropriateness, of the legislation, I fail to see why that argument was not adduced against sanctions in Rhodesia, given the position and attitude of South Africa. Precisely the same argument applies, and for the same reasons the aforesaid sanctions were not as effective as it was argued they might be.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we were in the business of gesture politics. It is widely accepted by those who support the Government's proposition that the Government are bringing forward this legislation in the open-eyed knowledge that in terms of efficacy it leaves a great deal to be desired. Nevertheless, the position was fairly set out by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), in an extremely pertinent and well-argued contribution, showing that the object of the exercise was to bring pressure upon the authorities in Iran for the purpose of securing the release of the hostages who have been held in flagrant disregard of international obligations for more than six months.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) spoke about spreading the load. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) quoted the example of the aero-engines that had been paid for by the Government of Chile and subsequently were not sent to that country. There have also been arguments for arms embargoes of certain kinds on different countries at different times and for different reasons.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North argued that if the Government, or Parliament, approved this legislation we should consider whether there was any

way in which we could compensate the firms and their employees who were dependent for their livelihood upon trade with Iran. He argued that they would have to bear the costs, in real terms, of, let us say, our act of moral support for the United States. We should consider that point carefully.
Though the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is correct in saying that this is a principle that has never been contemplated before by the Government it is, nevertheless, something that we cannot avoid considering if we are to take this step, which I support. I support it reluctantly, but I support it. I believe that our support should be in the terms outlined by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar.
It would be wrong if the national burden of our asserting this position were to fall in haphazard fashion upon certain firms and individuals who would have to carry the moral burden of the action that we propose to take. I am not being dogmatic about this matter; I am simply picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North and suggesting that this is an argument that deserves support. I am not necessarily saying what should be done about it, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has put his finger upon a potential domestic crisis that we may cause in seeking to correct an external international injustice.

Sir Raymond Gower: Are not the consequences described by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to firms and their employees inevitable when sanctions are applied to any country?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) makes a fair point. I admit, as did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, that I am extremely doubtful about sanctions as a general proposition. I take the view that our response to the imprisonment of the hostages should, in the first instance, have been a diplomatic response. In other words, we should have tried to reply in kind rather than attempt to widen the issue into the commercial area.
This legislation is introduced as an agreed proposition to bring pressure to bear on Iran in order to effect the release of the hostages in response to a direct


plea from the United States. I am prepared to accept that that is a plea to which we should respond.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We are debating methods by which pressure can be brought to bear upon Iran. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) attacked some of my hon. Friends—without naming them—by saying that they had suggested earlier sanctions against Iran.
I think it is deplorable that an hon. Member should make accusations of that kind while failing to name the hon. Members whom he was attacking. The hon. Member failed to mention the name of any hon. Member who had said that there should have been economic sanctions against Iran during the regime of the Shah.
As has been clearly stated, there are hon. Members who have from time to time said that we should not sell arms. They have said that not only should we not sell arms to Iran but that there should be no trade in arms. That is a respectable view that should not be distorted in the way the issue before us was distorted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made an admirable speech and gave us a comprehensive survey of the issues. It needs to be said that we are dealing with amendments to the Bill and not whether we deplore what has happened to the American hostages. The House is unanimous in its condemnation of the taking of hostages of any nationality who are acting in a diplomatic capacity in another country. That goes without saying.
However, I say it again because there has been an attempt on the part of some supporters of the Bill to suggest that those of us who are opposed to this particular measure are prevaricating in our condemnation of the arrest of the American diplomats in Iran. We are not prevaricating.
We debated Rhodesian issues for years and we heard hon. Members—including, I think, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—condemning economic sanctions as a mechanism that should never be adopted. Those hon. Members who opposed the sanctions against Rhodesia

said that sanctions were wrong in principle and that we should never contemplate imposing them. Yet this Government—who when they were in Opposition condemned economic sanctions against Rhodesia—are now putting forward proposals for such sanctions against Iran.
Let me make my position clear. I believe that there are times when economic sanctions should be used. I supported the economic sanctions imposed by the British Government upon the illegal regime in—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). I called him because his name appears in support of the amendments. It is not in order for the hon. Member to make a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Evans: I was about to say why we had tabled these amendments and I intended to move on to discuss the general principle.
It has been said that we might not be supporting economic sanctions. Some of us in Opposition wish to make amendments to the Bill and draw attention to certain of Government's proposals. It is not that we are opposed to economic sanctions. Cases can be argued for the imposition of economic sanctions. In the context of this proposal, though we are unanimous in our view that the hostages should not be held by the Iranians, we suggest that economic sanctions are not the instrument by which their release will be secured.
I compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) on his persuasive speech yesterday. He suggested a course of action that the Government could take. We have raised the matter in the Security Council but there was no unanimity on that occasion. If we are to have sanctions, I believe that those sanctions should be imposed by the United Nations

7 pm

The Chairman: That is a Second Reading point. The amendment states:
leave out ' either contracts for services or '.
Other amendments deal with leaving out transport or oil companies. The debate is not about general sanctions. That took place yesterday.

Mr. Evans: I am coming to the specific issue. The amendments deal with contracts, transport and the products of oil companies. The Bill excludes the products of oil companies. The Bill excludes banking. The amendments highlight that the Bill is a gesture to the Americans. In that gesture we are trying to persuade them that they should not take military action in return for our imposition of economic sanctions.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendments make nonsense of the Bill and that if they were passed it would not even be an effective gesture? If one wants a valid Bill or valid sanctions, one cannot approve these absurd amendments.

Mr. Evans: The Bill is nonsense. The Bill states that an order
shall not apply to any contract made before the date on which the Order is made".
That means that all existing contracts with Iran stand. What a strange form of economic sanction that is.

The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would reserve such comments for Third Reading.

Mr. Evans: I think that you are being a little harsh, Mr. Weatherill. I was replying to the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). We are seeking to deal with the clause and the amendments which refer to the Orders in Council. The Orders in Council will give specific detail to the Bill's provisions. Only in Committee can we find out what the Government intend to do. We are told that existing contracts will not be affected.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend sure that such contracts will not be affected? If he or I were in the position of Iranian decision-makers, having to deal on a day-to-day basis with the problems, would we be prepared to sit idly by and say "All right, the West can do this to us. The West can have its policy on the current contracts and we shall fall in with it"? There is a considerable incentive, even with a financial loss, in not going along with the wishes of those who make life difficult. Is not that human nature in current-day Iran?

Mr. Evans: Real dangers have been mentioned in the debate. My hon. Friend

the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) talked about the car industry. At Newport docks cars are ready to be exported to Iran. Chrysler, now Talbot, had a strong trading arrangement with Iran for parts to be shipped from here to be assembled in Iran. Undertakings were given to the previous Government about Talbot continuing those arrangements. If that contract is ended, the factory producing Talbot cars could be closed and the cars could be produced in France. The French Government could say "Sanctions are being imposed by your Government. A new situation is created."
Amendment No. 8 deals with the exclusion of banking. The clause states that an Order in Council
shall not apply to any contract with a bank or other financial institution for the provision of banking or other financial services.
The Bill borders on farce. Exemptions are being made by the Government. We can argue about whether sanctions are the answer. They must be discussed at United Nations level. If the United Nations agrees, we should go ahead. Will sanctions help? As the Minister said, we are not sure what effect they will have. We are not sure whether the Bill will be beneficial.
I deplore the arrest of the hostages. They have been dispersed, but they are still alive. I hope that they will be able to return eventually. Are we doing something that could provoke a reaction? We must examine that. We are not discussing whether we want the hostages to be released. The House is unanimous in believing that it is wrong that diplomats should be taken and confined as they have been in Iran.
Yesterday we had a Second Reading debate on the Bill and at the same time the House of Lords was dealing with the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order 1980.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The hon. Gentleman is well outside the ambit of the amendments. He should at least make a casual reference to the amendments which we are supposed to be discussing.

Mr. Evans: I shall come to a conclusion shortly, Mr. Crawshaw. I was making some general remarks about the whole nature of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make remarks about the whole Bill. We are discussing amendments. Unless he can relate his remarks to them, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Evans: I was making one or two general remarks.
It is strange that we are discussing a Bill which is not as firm as the United Nations sanctions resolution on Rhodesia. Exemptions were included in the United Nations resolution on Iran, but under the Bill oil is exempt. Fancy dealing with Iran, a major oil producer, and exempting oil from sanctions. That is not laid down in the Bill, but that is what the Minister told us on Second Reading.
The question of banking is dealt with in amendment No. 8. Presumably, it would be permissible for foreign companies exporting to Iran to be financed by banks in Britain. The Minister told us that certain guidelines have been issued to the banks, but the details have not been made known to the House. If the Government have taken certain decisions about the major financial institutions, we are entitled to know the details.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend talks about the oil industry. It is difficult to define what is an oil industry and what is a chemical industry. In my constituency there is BP Chemicals, which is half in the oil industry and half in the chemical industry. I know that in South Wales there are similar problems. That is part of the difficulty in trying to define one group of materials which includes another group of materials—chemicals—in another category.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend said, it is a wide area. One hon. Member said that a deal had been arranged whereby Japan would import oil from Iran. We heard also that gas from the oil industry in Iran would continue to be supplied to West Germany, Czechoslovakia and other countries. Apparently that is to be allowed to continue, yet oil is to be excluded.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman point out where in the Bill it states that oil is excluded? If it is excluded, what is the purpose of amendment

No. 4? I put it to him that oil is not excluded by the Bill.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman might put that point to me, but I cannot answer for the Government. The Government made a categorical statement that oil is excluded. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the amendment. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for the Second Reading debate yesterday when, in reply to a question about the oil deal with Japan, the Minister made a categorical statement to the effect that oil would be excluded. The amendment was tabled to discover the Government's view on the matter. If they are to exclude oil, let them accept the amendment

Mr. Parkinson: Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. He is making very heavy weather about a non-point. His argument is based on a misconception. There is no intention that the powers under the Bill or the 1939 Act should be used to control the import of oil products. As far as I know, we do not export much oil to Iran.

Mr. Evans: The Minister is not getting away with that statement. Britain is now an oil exporter because of North Sea oil. We are making an agreement with our EEC partners, who may be importers of oil. The Minister would not deny that Iran is a major oil exporter. It would be a major economic sanction against Iran if we said that it could no longer export oil. If he is saying that the sanctions apply only to British exports of oil to Iran, that is nonsense. It is like selling refrigerators to the Eskimos. The Minister cannot get away with that.
The point that has been made by this side of the Committee is that the Japanese will take oil exports from Iran. Does the Minister deny that? I shall give way to him if he is prepared to deny that.

Mr. Parkinson: I think that it might help if I make a general appeal to hon. Members who intend to take part in the debate to look at the Bill. That might shorten the discussion. The Bill does not deal with exports. It deals with contracts for British citizens to supply goods.

Mr. Evans: I understand the Minister to be saying that the Bill does not affect countries purchasing from Iran. That point was not made clear yesterday when the Minister said that oil was excluded. It is a good thing that the amendment was tabled, because it has clarified the position to some extent. The Minister has given a further explanation. We are discussing a matter of major importance. We understand that the Foreign Secretary cannot introduce the Bill because he is in another place. Yet instead of the Bill being presented by the Lord Privy Seal it was introduced by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment. There should have been a time lapse between Second Reading and Committee. I do not think that there is a need to deal with the matter with such urgency.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bring his remarks within the terms of the amendments that we are discussing. His remarks relate to the debate yesterday, not to today.

Mr. Evans: The point that the Minister has made shows that he has replied to several points raised on Second Reading. We are expected to move to the Committee stage of the Bill without having seen a copy of Hansard.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Minister intervened during his speech. Will he clarify whether his understanding of what the Minister said was that if a national of a third country decided to buy goods in the United Kingdom and then ship those goods to Iran, that would be perfectly legal once the Bill becomes an Act? If so, it is a significant matter. I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman thought of that.

Mr. Evans: I posed such a question on Second Reading. There could be companies in this country with overseas subsidiaries. We have lived through the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order 1980, when we thought that we were dealing with people who had had

contact with the illegal regime in Rhodesia. People flew back and forth to Rhodesia, and British companies dealt with subsidiaries in Africa and with firms in other countries. That was a way to getting around the sanctions. The point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is important.
Are economic sanctions being taken against Iran to bring to an end the holding of the hostages? Is that the issue? The purpose of the amendment is to find out what is in the mind of the Government. That is why we are tabling amendments about the oil position. The matter is very vague. Is it a charade? Are we saying to the Americans that we do not want them to take military action, that we are taking sanctions because we want to maintain the Alliance and that we want to show good will? We know that the Bill will not do anything. It is meaningless. It is nonsensical. Yet we wish to go through the procedures in the House to avoid military action by the United States.
When dealing with the amendments, it is important to bring out the purpose behind the Government's intentions. That is why the amendments are important. They deal with contracts, transport, oil companies and banking.
I do not wish to speak at length, but the whole Bill has been dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner. It is agreed that we should seek to bring about the early release of the hostages. Yet the taking of tough action against Iran, instead of cooling the position, might have the opposite effect. In Iran at present a Parliament is emerging and a President has been elected, although a Prime Minister has not yet been appointed. In different parts of the world there are the doves and the hawks. We should be saying "Let us hold back and do nothing which will set matters aflame."
It may well be that the Bill is not the method whereby we can cool the situation but rather the method by which it can be aggravated. When the West has talked of strong sanctions, the reply from the leaders in Iran has been "All right; we shall set the refineries ablaze. We shall block the seas which provide an entry to Iran and to other countries such as Saudi Arabia." That could result in a state of


conflagration in the whole of the Middle East.
I believe that we should cool it. We face a difficult international situation. I do not believe that the Bill advocates a method that we should adopt, although in other instances an argument can be made for economic sanctions. There is also an argument which can be made, and should be made, for our calling upon the Iranian regime to release the American hostages.

Mr. Marlow: I should like to speak in favour of amendments Nos. 2, 9, 10 and 11, because I should like to see the Bill reduced in its activities. In fact, I vehemently wish that the Bill could be withdrawn, although I realise that that wish is rather forlorn. In wishing that the Bill should be withdrawn, I appreciate that I am in the minority on the Conservative Benches, but, as right hon. and hon. Members will realise, minorities are sometimes right.
I should like to look at the genesis of the present situation. The taking of the hostages in Tehran, as everyone else has said, was an outrage of cosmic proportions, justifying almost any effective action to secure their release. That does not mean that it justifies counter-productive or ineffective action. To most of us it seems obvious that European Governments have been concerned from the outset at the possibility that the United States, in its understandable frustration, might indulge in some mad military venture to secure the release of the hostages.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that hon. Members have been straying very wide in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we debated this subject yesterday. We are now debating very fine points, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a contribution he should limit it to one or more of the amendments.

Mr. Marlow: As I have said, Mr. Crawshaw, I am speaking in support of several of the amendments because I wish to see the scope of the Bill reduced. I want to set out my case for wanting the scope of the Bill reduced. I believe that it could have damaging implications for the country, and I feel that if some of the amendments were adopted the potential damage that it contains could be reduced.
European Governments were obviously concerned at that possibility. In the event, the raid took place—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly made his point when he said that he was opposed to the Bill. Having said that, will he now divert his attention to why he wants the Bill changed and the amendments inserted? That is all that the Committee is concerned with.

Mr. Marlow: In the total measure, which I seek to reduce, the Government are introducing not powers to deal with existing trade but, rather, powers to deal with future trade and future contracts of services. I understand that if the amendment is passed services will be able to continue, but in respect of the supply of goods, if someone from a third country acts as a broker or intermediary the supply of goods to Iran will be able to continue. In effect, that will considerably reduce the effectiveness of the Bill.
I also understand that at this stage there are to be no penalties and that no one visualises that anyone will be imprisoned or fined for contravening the Bill as presently drafted. No one visualises that in respect of the supply of services or the sale of goods there is to be a blockade or a Beira patrol. In effect, the sanctions as proposed by the Government will not work, and the Government do not expect them to work.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised two matters. One of them relates to third parties. We are not discussing that subject in the amendments. The other concerns the question whether there will be a Beira patrol, but that does not come within the scope of the amendments. We must keep to what the amendments are about and not indulge in Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Marlow: The purpose of the Bill as drafted at present is to secure the release of the hostages. As it stands, I do not believe that it will in any way bring forward the date of their release. As the amendments suggest, the Bill will not provoke such a strong reaction in the part of the world in which the hostages are now so sadly situated. I should like to see the Bill amended, because, in common with every other hon. Member,


I am concerned that the hostages should be released as soon as possible.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether this is a point of order or an interruption, Mr. Crawshaw. However, I feel a little guilty because I raised the question of the Beira patrol in connection with amendment No. 2. We are talking about services, but the truth is that, unless we discuss matters of services and transport in terms of what may happen, we are not having a meaningful discussion. The illustration of the Beira patrol and the Persian Gulf is precisely what the amendments are designed to be about.

The Second Deputy Chairman: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) raised the matter in regard to penalties, but that is not what we are discussing at present. I do not see what the Beira patrol or anything else has to do with the amendments that are at present under discussion.

Mr. Marlow: The only reason why the Government have expressed—I was going to say "with any degree of conviction", but I do not think that there was any degree of conviction about it—a desire to bring the Bill forward is that they wish to cement the Atlantic Alliance and to continue our alliance with America in good heart. I support the amendments because I believe that if they are included the Bill will be less damaging to our interests and at the same time will have no detrimental influence on the Atlantic Alliance.
If there is anyone in Washington with any intelligence—I sincerely believe that there is—I am sure that he will look upon the Bill as it currently stands as unnecessary and probably most ineffective, particularly with regard to the release of the hostages. I understand that there is a feeling of terror among hon. Members at the prospect of United States isolationism developing, although that is not something that we can discuss at the present time. But I believe—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but will he relate his remarks to one of the amendments? He is now saying what he could have said yesterday, or what he can say during the debate on clause stand part, if we ever get to it.

From the amount of discussion around this subject, it does not strike me that the Chair will allow it, especially if hon. Members continue to stray across the whole of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his comments to one of the amendments?

Mr. Marlow: I entirely accept what you are saying, Mr. Crawshaw, but my concern is for the future of the Atlantic Alliance, and I am concerned that the Bill should be beneficial to it. I should therefore like to see it amended.
I think that one of the most important things for the Atlantic Alliance is the future of the Middle East and the future relationships between the Alliance and the Middle East. I believe that the Bill as proposed will cause damage between ourselves and the Iranians, damage to our commercial prospects and damage to the interests of the West in the Middle East. Therefore, I would very much like to see the amendment passed.

Mr. Heffer: I speak in support of amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. I note that the Minister appears to be getting slightly worried. I shall not be too long, but I shall try to deploy some arguments in support of those amendments.
Amendment No. 8 proposes that we omit from the Bill lines 16–18 on page 1. Those lines state that an Order in Council under subsection (1)
(a) shall not apply to any contract with a bank or other financial institution for the provision of banking or other financial services.
Why is it considered essential for that clause to be in the Bill? There could be a good reason for it—indeed, I am sure that that is so.
An interesting article appeared in The Times on 23 April. It was headed
European Banks may take a strong line on Iran.
The article stated:
The news that the foreign ministers of the EEC had agreed on a joint stance towards Iran which might lead to economic sanctions found the West German banking industry fully prepared to fall in line.
British commercial banks were unwilling to be drawn on the question as yet, although widespread compliance with any Government request to restrict banking operations with Iran is virtually certain.
Obviously it is not "virtually certain", because it is clear that the Government have decided that banking operations will not, basically, be affected.
The article continued:
The position of Iranian deposits with European banks remains delicate, if only because no country wishes to frighten depositors from oil-exporting countries.
I understand that argument. The article stated:
There are still about $3,000 million frozen Iranian deposits with European subsidiaries of United States banks. Several legal actions are being fought in London and other European centres to determine whether American subsidiaries have to follow instructions from United States authorities.
At the beginning of the year there were estimates of $4,000 million of Iranian deposits with banks in EEC countries, of which around $1,500 million were deposited in London and $1,000 million in Paris.
That gives us a clue. Are the Government serious? Are they developing a facade to disguise their real attitude to sanctions? It seems that when they are confronted with the really important issues they will not do anything about them.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I should hope not.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly. I am not against the Bill. I understand the Government's position. However, the amendment is being moved to enable us to obtain a full explanation.
Let us know precisely what is behind the Government's thinking. We are entitled to have spelt out clearly exactly what the Government have in mind. I accept that we could be in trouble if there were a real effort to impose sanctions through banking. Only idiots would say "We should not take any notice of the problems that arise if we carry out sanctions as they will have to be implemented if the part of the clause is removed as the amendment proposes." I hope that we shall have a proper and thorough explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: Yesterday the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who is now having a good gossip behind the Government Front Bench, for which I do not blame him, referred perfectly properly to American subsidiary banks in the United Kingdom. Is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government's reply both last night and today should take refuge in the sub judice position of these complex legal matters? Surely we should not have to wait until

November. The issue should be sorted out within the foreseeable future and before we start introducing legislation of this sort.

Mr. Heffer: I take my hon. Friend's point. I heard the exchange that took place between himself and the Government Front Bench at an earlier stage. As so often happens with problems of the sort that now face us, there are legal proceedings and Governments tend to hide behind the sub judice rule. That is understood, but it does not help us. Surely we have the right to be helped in this instance.
There could be another explanation. It could be the main explanation, and I think that I have put my finger on the core of the problem. There are some sinister people who take the awful view that bankers have to be left alone because bankers are protected by a Conservative Government while workers are not. There are some who take that view. It is amazing how many millions of ordinary working people take that view. Indeed, it has been strengthened because of the proposals contained in the Budget. I agree that they are not connected with the amendment, but those people would take that area of Government policy into account when considering the amendments that we are discussing. They would bear in mind how the bankers went pretty well scot-free in the Budget and are doing very well out of it while ordinary working people are being clobbered.
Those who argue along those lines may have a point, especially when it comes to consideration of amendment No. 11. There may be thousands of working people employed by a company that has a contract with Iran. Those who support my argument say that the contract should be renewed when it expires. Let us suppose that the Government get away with their measures and it is not renewed. That supposition is made on the basis that amendment No. 9 is not accepted. That means that thousands of working people would be thrown out of work. That would not happen in normal circumstances. It would not happen because of the normal crisis of the capitalist system.

Mr. Alan Clark: There is no such thing as a "normal" crisis.

Mr. Heffer: Of course, that crisis is with us all the time. There is always a normal crisis in the capitalist system. At some times it is slightly more normal than at others.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: There are abnormal crises as well.

Mr. Heffer: I accept that there are abnormal crises and they complicate the issue. The Bill may throw workers out of work. What will happen to them?

Mr. Alan Clark: What about South Africa?

Mr. Heffer: That is an interesting point. I had been about to touch on that subject. Some people are prepared to suffer, because they believe in what they are doing. There is a case in English history, connected with the United States of America. Ordinary working people in Lancashire suffered because they would not agree to the import of Southern cotton. People virtually starved for a principle. Working people do not support the Bill. They will not be thrown out of work happily.

Mr. Alan Clark: If people want to starve for ideological reasons, that is down to them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is not for a Government to say that people should starve because the Government do not approve of certain trade. That is a good point. Why does not the hon. Gentleman extend that principle to cover commercial contracts with South Africa, Chile and the other countries that he does not like? If working people want to starve, we should let them. Why should the Government decree that they should starve?

Mr. Heffer: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask that type of question. I was surprised that Mr. Crawshaw did not point out that the amendment has nothing to do with Chile or South Africa. He has been telling other hon. Members that they cannot extend the argument. I assure you, Mr. Crawshaw, that I am doing my best to keep to the subject—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) asked the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) a valid question that followed from the hon.

Gentleman's remarks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer.

Mr. Heffer: Before you rose, Mr. Crawshaw, I had been about to say that if I were allowed to do so I would be happy to deal with the question put by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark). Indeed, I should like to extend my answer further. There is no doubt that the Labour movement—including the mass of the trade union movement and Labour supporters—was prepared to carry out sanctions against South Africa. It did not like the racialist policies of the South African Government. That is a very different situation. In Chile, the Government were overthrown by a military dictator. One day there was a democracy, the next day there was total—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would answer briefly and not go into the historical background.

Mr. Heffer: I accept your reprimand, Mr. Crawshaw. I was trying to plot my course on the basis of your rulings. If I cannot pursue that point, I shall have to leave it. I hope that I have given some answer. Hon. Members can guess what I was not allowed to say.
Working people do not agree with this policy. I am not particularly in favour of opinion polls. However, they indicate clearly that the majority overwhelmingly oppose what has happened to the American diplomats. They have made clear that they want them out. However, they do not want economic sanctions that may lead to a military conflict. Through no fault of their own, workers will be thrown out of work by a policy that has not been dictated by this Government. This Government are part of a little cabal that meets in Europe. They have been subjected to some form of blackmail—if that term is acceptable—by the United States of America. As a result, people will be thrown out of work.
The Government have a duty to compensate those who are thrown out of work for any loss of income. Indeed, they also have a responsibility to compensate companies. I have given some of the reasons behind my support for these perfectly reasonable amendments.

Mr. Alan Clark: I hope, Mr. Crawshaw, that you will stop me if you do not like the tenor of my point. Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that the trade union movement should compensate any members who may suffer as a result of sanctions against South Africa—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman was very far-sighted. He is out of order.

Mr. Heffer: I cannot reply to that point, because I am not allowed to do so. Obviously, I am disappointed that I cannot develop the argument.
These amendments are important. I do not think that the Bill is particularly bright My dad would have had a marvellous phrase to describe it. However, I cannot use that phrase in the House. It is a way of saying that the Bill is neither one thing nor the other. If the Bill is left in its present form, it could become highly dangerous in certain circumstances. As time goes on, the situation might become dangerous. Certain aspects of the Bill will be seen not to work. There will be moves to strengthen future legislation.
These amendments are reasonable, sensible and well put. They should be accepted. I hope that there will be no need to vote and that when the Minister winds up he will say that the amendments are so admirably moderate that he will accept them without question.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I am fortunate to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as a benign and benevolent mood has descended on the Chamber. I do not intend to disturb that mood too much. However, I would not have spoken at all this evening if the Minister had ventured to answer some of the questions that I posed last night. The Minister knows that some of the questions that I raised have caused a considerable flurry of meetings in his Department throughout the day. Perhaps the Department does not tell the Minister all that happens. I can see why.
This morning, I wrote to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I do not know whether the communications system is such as to guarantee that that letter has been conveyed to the Department of Trade. I wrote to the

Foreign Office this morning specifically on the points on which I had sought answers last night and upon which I hope that we shall glean some further information this evening. The collection of amendments which we are taking together under your guidance, Mr. Crawshaw, affords ample opportunity for me to develop this point and still remain within the rules of order.
Amendment No. 3 deals with transport. Amendment No. 4 deals with oil companies. Amendment No. 8 deals with banking. Amendment No. 9 deals with the renewal of contracts, which is the most important issue upon which I hope we can glean further information. Amendment No. 10 deals with international obligations. Amendment No. 11 deals with compensation, about which I also wrote to the Foreign Office this morning.
The points on which I sought further information last night and on which I am still awaiting further information centre mainly around the question of the future of the Talbot contract with the Iranian manufacturing company which puts together the bodies, which are made in Iran, with the engine and power train kits, which are chiefly put together in the Stoke works at Coventry and on which are dependent, in turn, at least another 350 suppliers.
As I said last night, if we are talking about the renewal of contracts, we could be talking about approximately 2,000 workers immediately involved on that work alone. On any sanctions having an effect, the jobs of those workers would be immediately in jeopardy. That could put about 4,000 workers, all told, in Coventry plants at risk; and ultimately, if that were to put in jeopardy the future of Talbot in the United Kingdom, that could, on a directly employed basis, put some 19,000 jobs in jeopardy. If one extends that to include jobs in components, engineering supplies and distribution, we could be talking about up to 100,000 workers all told.
p
It was because of that danger that I sought particular clarification on the issue of the renewal of existing contracts. Last night the Minister could only tell us—and even then he made only a passing reference to it—that it was all a matter of individual contracts and induividual


judgement. I am sory, but that does not satisfy the people I represent, some of whom came down to see me yet again this morning. They were not satisfied about the information that we were given last night. I had a deputation from the Talbot Stoke joint shop stewards only this morning because they were not satisfied with the information given in the replies last night. They have asked me specifically to find out exactly were they stand.
Amendment No. 9 deals with the renewal of existing contracts. The Minister for Trade will know that there is more than one contract involved. He can talk about renewal options being available and about those options being available to certain parties, but he knows very well that the whole issue of trying to separate out future contracts from existing contracts and their renewal is not at all simple. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to pay some attention to the points to which he was not able to reply last night.
Unless I get some satisfaction from the hon. Gentleman tonight, I shall press this matter further, and I shall have to tell those whom I represent that they will have good cause to continue to be worried. We got no information last night, despite the fact that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, quite specifically said that he would refer to the points which I had raised and that the Minister for Trade, in his winding-up speech, said that he intended specifically to refer to the points that I had raised. We got no answers last night, and it does not look as though we shall get many answers this evening.
On the specific question of amendment No. 9,1 want some more detailed information, particularly confirmation that the Talbot contract to supply the engine and power train for the Peycan assembly in Iran will be able to continue and will not have to be breached, even under the Bill. I should also like some kind of undertaking that even under the 1939 powers breach of that contract will not be allowed.
It is all very well for the Minister of State to deal with possible future sanctions under the Bill. As I have said before,

I do not believe that the issue of what constitutes a future contract is clear.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of future contracts, I know that my hon. Friend knows the motor industry even better than I do. I represent the Leyland truck and tractor division at Bathurst and he represents very important sectors of the British motor industry. We are talking about the future. There are running contracts. One does not just go in for a single package. Packages run into one another. We still have not got an answer on what is to be considered a new deal and what is a renewal, or what is part of an old deal. Until we get some kind of clarity on this matter, it would be a dereliction of duty not to oppose this kind of proposition. The future of large sectors of the British motor industry could well be at stake, remembering that it is a matter not only of Iran but, as some of us believe—and as we have pointed out at possibly inordinate length—the whole of the Middle East. What would the British motor industry do without the Middle East.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He has made a typically relevant point. This is an expanding market, and British manufacturers and assemblers ought to have a growing part of the market.
I hope that the Minister of State will appreciate the significance of the point I raise. I know that his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) appreciates it. We are probably dealing with one of the most lucrative and best commercial contracts of any European country with Iran. That is the significance of it. We have already had the figures from the Opposition Benches which show that for the first three months of this year the Talbot contract with Iran was responsible for more than half of the revenue earnings of United Kingdom trade with Iran. It has that degree of significance. That is why I say that we must have a far more definite statement that the contract will be secure in all aspects.
On the question of renewal, the Minister also ought to know, and will know if he has been as exercised as he claims to have been in his Department, that there is every possibility that the French could use the sanctions issue as an excuse—I use that word advisedly—to switch the


sourcing of that contract from the United Kingdom into France.
I quote briefly from a memorandum which the stewards brought to me this morning. I praise the Talbot Stoke joint shop stewards committee in the Coventry workshop for the notes they have supplied to me. [Interruption.]
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman finds this gleeful in some way. I do not find gleeful or joyful the possible loss of jobs of 4,000 people in Coventry and possibly 19,000 people up and down the country. I find it a very serious issue. The possibility that because of the Government's action we could lose a vital car contract to one of his so-called trading partners, if the contract goes to France, I take very seriously indeed. I only hope that an equally serious attitude will be concentrated upon that contract by the Department of Trade. [Interruption.]
I find it rather distasteful, Mr. Crawshaw, that the Minister will persist in responding to some of these very serious points by descending to personal innuendo. He ought to be above that in his position. My constituents will take very careful note of his attitude tonight. They will hang on to every word he says in this debate because they are very concerned that under the provisions of the Bill and under those contained in the 1939 Act, and even if the provisions contained in these two pieces of legislation are not made operable, the French could use this as an excuse to transfer the sourcing of that contract elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate the seriousness of the matter. If he does not, we must make sure that his lack of attention is conveyed outside the House.

Mr. Dalyell: In the former Chrysler Linwood factory, which was taken over by Peugeot, there is considerable concern among shop stewards about how easily work can be transferred from Scotland to France. Although the Talbot production figures in my hon. Friend's constituency are considerably better than the French figures, the threat of transferring the work is all too real.

8 pm

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is right. Talbot United Kingdom is on target and hopes to meet the break-even point set for it by the French parent company by the end of this year. The continuation of

the contract with Iran is an important element. We are therefore concerned to have substantive assurance from the hon. Gentleman that no aspect of the contract will be in jeopardy.
Amendment No. 11 concerns a matter that I raised in a letter to the Foreign Office this morning. We have so far had scant information on compensation. If the hon. Gentleman has been following the paper work on the case, he will know of the possibility of Talbot applying to be considered under the short-time working compensation scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) mentioned compensation. The Government at last have the opportunity to tell the House what will happen if, as a result of sanctions, a company makes an application under that scheme. That scheme was introduced by the previous Government and assisted the Chrysler company, as it was then, because of a temporary interruption of the contract due to the Iranian revolution. Chrysler benefited from that assistance, and the circumstances were similar to those now.
The company has been given to understand that the operation of the short-time working compensation scheme and its relevance to the cessation or temporary interruption of the contract is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Employment. My constituents and the company's management would like to know where they stand. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Stockport, North would also like to know where their constituents stand if some of the companies for which they work make an application under the scheme. It is all very well to make a generalised hypothetical statement that the Minister may look favourably at an application. That is not good enough for our constituents. What compensation will be offered.
Talbot could not bear the cost of a lay-off agreement for a substantial period. If the supplies under the contract were interrupted, the company would probably lose the contract. The issue would then be redundancy. The contract, supplies. jobs and revenue would be lost for ever.

Mr. Dalyell: With little prospect of regaining contracts from Romania and other competitors.

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is right. Similar considerations apply to Massey-Ferguson, which has already experienced enormous difficulties in Turkey and other countries in that part of the world because of problems with the Export Credits Guarantee Department and inability to pay bills. Other companies will also be in difficulties.
As well as wanting information on the crucial issue of renewal of the existing contract, we need a guarantee that the Government's powers under the 1939 legislation will not be used with regard to that contract. People want an undertaking that, even if the powers under the Bill are not brought into operation and the Government choose not to bring in their powers under the 1939 legislation, they will do all they can to prevent the company sourcing this contract by France. It is the best contract that any United Kingdom company has with Iran. In the first three months of this year it has been responsible for half the revenue-earning from trade with Iran. It is critical, and we need answers.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend has dealt with contracts for exporters. There is nothing in the clause to exclude imports. The exemptions apply to a contract made before the relevant day and to contracts with banks and financial institutions. The Bill becomes more and more curious. I understood that sanctions would cover imports and exports, but the Minister now tells us that it will be exports only.

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend reinforces my call for answers. I hope that the Minister will not continue the process of evasion and avoidance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is tragic that amendment No. 7 has not been selected. It would have widened the debate and perhaps have led to an extension of the Second Reading debate.
These amendments afford the opportunity to put constituency points. Amendment No. 9 deals with the renewal or extension of a contract. Amendment No. 11 deals with redundancy or short-time working that may result from the introduction of the Bill. The Bill has a direct effect on employment. In many parts of the country it will lead to severe unemployment.
It is appalling that the Bill seeks to exclude those organisations that are friendly with the Conservative Party but includes industrial workers, who, perhaps, have more affinity with the Labour Party. Clause 1(2)(b) deliberately excludes organisations friendly to the Conservative Party. I wonder whether those organisations impressed on the Government the need for the exclusions. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) stated repetitively yesterday, it is an appalling Bill. It demonstrates a clear bias against industrial workers.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman say to which amendment he is referring?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was about to refer to a meeting held in the House about 10 days ago, when shop stewards from the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions came to London from the Talbot plant to express their anxiety about the loss of jobs that will result from the Bill. Amendment No. 11 deals with redundancy and short-time working stemming from the Bill. The potential loss of a £150 million contract for Talbot, with a loss of several thousand jobs—about which there have not been satisfactory replies from Ministers—means that many Opposition Members find that it is necessary to speak. Khomeini has said, on a number of occasions, that Iran may decide, on the introduction of sanctions, to terminate a number of trading arrangements with Western European countries. The termination of those agreements would lead to loss of jobs in some parts of Britain, especially the part that I am sent to the House to represent.
I have tried to measure the effects of this sanctions Bill on companies and workers in my constituency, especially the effects on redundancy and short-time working. The first company I studied was BSC Cumbria, which has a plant my constituency employing about 5,000 people, many of them producing railway lines. Workington is well known internationally for this product that it has supplied over the years to countries throughout the world, especially the Middle East I was informed of a history of supply to Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Kuwait.
The consultancy arm of British Rail, Henderson, Hughes, Busby and Trans-mark, is at the moment busy trying to negotiate the construction of a new railway network throughout Iran to which Workington can, perhaps, look for orders. These orders have a direct bearing on my constituency, which falls at present within a special development area but is soon to be demoted. The orders are vital if Workington is to maintain at least current levels of employment and to avoid the increasing unemployment that is developing in parts of the country and in certain towns in my constituency. We need the potential of the rail network and the orders that could possibly flow to my constituency in the event that we won the contract. We hope eventually to secure the order. The introduction of the sanctions Bill could have a bearing on whether those orders come to fruition.
I now turn to another company in my constituency, Condura Fabrics—

Mr. Dalyell: I declare an interest as an NUR-sponsored Member of Parliament. As one who has taken an interest in rail exports, may I ask whether it is not the case that Workington exports are jeopardised not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East? This is the inevitable consequence of what we are doing. Some of the Arab States have made clear—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. What the hon. Gentleman says is an argument for not passing the Bill at all. We are discussing amendments that seek to limit certain aspects of it. If the hon. Gentleman refers to whether the Bill applies to existing contracts or future contracts, his remarks will be within the terms of the amendment. He is not able to discuss what is likely to happen due to actions by the Iranian Government that are beyond our control.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. There is a grey line concerning these amendments. I do not ask for a reply immediately, because there needs to be time for thought. I should like to know, however, which amendments you intend to call for a vote. Has the Chair made up its mind which amendments it is prepared to call?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall try to help in any way I can. I understand

that the amendment under consideration will be called. There is grouped with it amendment No. 11, on which I understand certain hon. Members are anxious to see a Division called. I think that the Chair would allow that. I wish to make the point clear. An argument relating to what the Iranian Government, or any other Middle East Government, might do as a result of the Bill is outside the control of this Government. It has nothing to do with the amendments that we are considering. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep within order, he should limit his arguments to amendments Nos. 9 and 11.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Is it really being said that what the Iranian Government, or any other Government, may do is irrelevant? The reaction of the Iranians is highly relevant to what we are doing. Any action that we take has its counter-reaction. Actions in political life have their consequences. Is it said—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the point clearly. I have answered the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are relevant to the Second Reading debate relating to what might happen if the Bill is passed. The Bill is now in Committee. We are discussing amendments to the Bill or whether it is to be amended at all. The two amendments, as I have indicated, deal with the aspects to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Those amendments are Nos. 9 and 11.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Is not the reaction of the Iranian Government to the effect of the amendments relevant?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot quite understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry, Mr. Crawshaw. I was trying to be unusually terse. You informed my hon. Friend that the point he was making about the attitude of the Iranian Government to the Bill was a Second Reading point. I was pointing out that in Committee we could, surely, look at what is likely to be the Iranian Government's attitude to the amendments that we are discussing.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that would be irrelevant. We are discussing a specific number of amendments that seek to do particular things. Amendment No. 9 seeks to tie down the Government so that the Bill will not affect existing contracts or future contracts. It is legitimate for hon. Members to argue the reasons for that amendment. Amendment No. 11 asks whether the short-time legislation would apply if people were made redundant. That is another argument. Those are the fine points with which we are dealing. We are not discussing the reaction of the Iranian Government to the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for intervening. He raises a question stemming from his sponsorship by the National Union of Railwaymen. It is an interesting point. If this sanctions Bill is passed, there will be a response not only from Iran but from the whole Islamic world. That point has not become evident from the debate. A far wider conflict is involved. That is why we are particularly worried in Workington. I drew attention to the number of countries in the Middle East with which we have traditionally traded in railway line production.
I now turn to Condura Fabrics, another company in my constituency which employs a great number of people and produces textured fabrics for fitting on car seats. I asked the company whether it was supplying any products that may form part of the Talbot contract. The company informed me that it was not but that it is currently bidding for part of that contract. That company equally needs work in my constituency. There have been some lay-offs, and it is important that the company should enter a more healthy trading period and enjoy a fuller market. If the sanctions order were to be introduced, jobs in that company might not be created again in a special development area, or, indeed, in a town where the unemployment rate is almost 15 per cent.
The chemical industry is also affected by the sanctions order. Exports of chemicals to Iran last year totalled £71 million and in 1979 £39.3 million. Part of those chemical exports came from

Pentagon Chemicals in my constituency. I contacted that firm today and it told me that it was already selling to markets in Iran. Although it feels that its area of the industry—food and pharmaceuticals—is not affected by the Bill now, it believes that it might be affected in the future. That belief stems from the fact that the company is developing a new product—an agent which prevents the growth of bacteria in oil wells. The company has spent a lot of time trying to get markets for this in Iran and it has been looking forward to getting that business. I am told that on the day the siege took place in London the company's representatives were actually submitting samples to the attachés at the Iranian Embassy.

Mr. Dalyell: This is one of the difficulties that we face. Who is to say what is a chemical, which is embargoed, and what is a pharmaceutical, which is allowed? There is a very thin dividing line.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wish that I could answer all those questions on the complicated matters relating to the chemical industry. I cannot. All I can say is that Pentagon Chemicals has worked very hard to get this business and the company is distraught at the prospect of losing it. In passing, I must say that it is tragic that our Benches are not full this evening, because many jobs will be lost as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Jack Straw: My hon. Friend has been talking about the way in which orders made under clause 1 might affect future contracts. Does he agree with me that there is still a good deal of uncertainty facing companies which must fulfil existing contracts? That arises from the fact that we still have no clear commitment from the Government that they will not apply the powers under the 1939 Act to stop shipments of goods which are produced under existing contracts.
My hon. Friend will recall that last night the Minister of State said that no decision had been taken to use these powers. He went on to say that any decision to do so would depend on a debate and a decision in the House. Will my hon. Friend accept that the implications of the Minister's statement that those powers could be used in respect of existing contracts will create a good deal of uncertainty about whether the firms can go ahead? I offer as an example—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is supposed to be making an intervention; he appears to be making a speech.

Mr. Straw: I was trying to make my point in an interrogative manner in the hope that my hon. Friend would pick it up. Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a firm which, having heard the full text of the Minister's statement yesterday, still asks whether it can go ahead and produce the goods? it appears that firms can go ahead and produce goods, but whether they will be allowed to ship them from the docks is another matter. This is a matter on which we need some clarification.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I find it hard to believe that the Minister of State will not seek the opportunity provided by the winding-up speech to answer all the anxieties that have been raised on this question by my hon. Friends. We have made repeated statements demanding information about our constituency companies.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred briefly to the fact that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends are absent from these Benches. If we speak on their behalf, the Government Whips must accept the responsibility—I will not call it blame, because all Governments manipulate the House of Commons—

The Second Deputy Chairman: But what has this to do with the amendment?

Mr. Dalyell: I was just saying that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends are absent and we are speaking on their behalf. There are a great many hon. Members who are committed to their own constituencies for the day of action tomorrow.

The Second Deputy Chairman: There are enough hon. Members here to keep the debate going without wishing for any more.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Can you guarantee that the closure will not be moved?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I cannot guarantee anything. I can only be guided by what the Committee wishes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not present today will read the columns of the Official Report tomorrow and the day after to study the Minister's reply. Nearly every constituency in Britain will be affected directly as a result of the Bill. I think that it is tragic that, in presenting the Bill to the House, the Minister did not ensure that a separate statement was made about the effect of the sanctions orders, particularly in the regions where jobs are so scarce and precious and where daily we reflect on our unemployment rates.
Pentagon Chemicals was confident of new business. That company is now worried. I want an assurance from the Minister of State that he will look into the affairs of the company in that context.
I turn to another company which also has a major operation in my constituency—British Leyland. The company has a long history of providing and delivering products to the Middle East. In Iran today there are 400 double-decker buses that were bought in this country. A number of double-decker buses—though I do not know how many—have also been delivered to Iran.
8.30 pm
There are outstanding inquiries at the Workington plant for more than 1,000 buses for Iran over the next four years. That will be a major order, even if only part of it is realised, and part may go to Germany and France. The Government are investing in new plant, through assistance under the Industry Act 1972, to produce the new Titan bus and we shall look forward to building buses for the Middle East market, and certainly for Iran, if the Bill is not passed.
We have also had inquiries from Kuwait for 20 buses and from Dubai for a further 20 buses. We feel that this attack on Islam—and it is not exclusively an attack on Iran—may prejudice the potential for business in that part of the world for the Leyland plant in Workington.
A recent delivery of 200 buses to Iraq—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I want to assist the hon. Gentleman. Will he please relate his remarks to one of the amendments? He is not relating his comments to any amendment at the moment.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the matter of transport related to amendment No. 4? My hon. Friend referred to French competition and, in spite of the statement of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in an answer on 23 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), the truth is that the French Government have made clear publicly that they find many difficulties in French law about implementing sanctions. The Italian Government have made a similar statement.
There are great legal difficulties, and I do not believe that the French Government will stir themselves unduly to find legal reasons for not allowing French competition in the bus industry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have tried to locate other companies in my constituency which would be affected by the Bill, and I have succeeded. I refer to amendment No. 11, and I believe that the effect of the Bill will be to create redundancy or short-time working in my constituency. That is why I have referred repeatedly to a number of companies which wish their case to be put to the Minister.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman described the legislation as not only an attack on Iran but an attack on Islam. That is unfair.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I and many of my hon. Friends believe that it is an attack on Islam and that we shall feel the repercussions of the introduction of the Bill for many years.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have just returned from the Persian Gulf and I know that there is to be an Islamic conference in the near future at which America will be pilloried for its raid into Iran and—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are getting outside the scope of the amendments. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has raised an argument which would have been appropriate on yesterday's Second Reading but is not within the scope of the amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wish to refer to the wider problem in my region. I am informed that at Wallsend the future delivery of a 20,000-ton ship, which cost £40 million, will be prejudiced if the Bill goes through.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not important to point out that that ship is 85 per cent. paid for by the Iranians, that to withhold it will raise deep questions of confiscation and that the Government had better outline their policy on confiscation?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister for Trade asks "Why?", but I should have thought that it was obvious why we seek reassurances which we must have in order to satisfy our constituency interests.
Another matter that needs consideration and affects redundancies or short-time working is what will happen if exports that would otherwise have been sent to Iran are diverted within the European market. I should like to quote the comments of Ernst Peiper of Salzgitter, a large steel company in Germany. He said:
The embargo against Russia or Iran would hit the company hard, to the tune of £50 million in annual sales, and 60,000 tonnes of structural steel which they already sent to Iran.
It is important to raise such matters, because we must ask where that structural steel will end up. That is particularly important when our own steel industry is reeling from problems, many of which have been difficult to resolve.
Will that steel end up in the United Kingdom? The Germans will sell it in some market. I feel that the Minister of State should tell us what action he intends to take, if that steel comes to the United Kingdom, to insulate the workers in the structural steel industry in the United Kingdom from the effects of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, the same Ernst Peiper said that company sales to Iran were running at DM 90 million per month in the year to June 1980 and that they had sold 60,000 tonnes of steel in the first quarter of this year. Can anyone imagine that in those circumstances a company like Salzgitter, if it was subject in any way to sanctions through German law—which is rather stricter in these matters


than French or Italian law—would not then trade through a third country, probably Turkey? Many Germans have been very open about this. They have the most intimate connections with Turkey. Those of us who were members of the indirectly elected European Assembly know the close contact that existed between the Germans and the Turks.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is completely out of order in discussing this. If the hon. Member wished to discuss this sort of thing, he should have tabled amendments. Then, if the amendments had been selected, we could have discussed them. Such amendments are not tabled and they have certainly not been selected. We are not discussing what happens when these goods are not sent to another country. I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will relate what he is saying to one of the amendments, as he was doing on amendment No. 11a short while ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have tried to keep to amendment No. 11, which relates to redundancy and short-time working. I think that my hon. Friend has made a very relevant point, and that is that if companies abroad, subject to other laws, are able in one way or another to bypass international rules or regulations—if that be what they are—on the question of supplies to Iran, they will intervene in our markets at a long-term cost to our people in our industries. I think that relates directly to amendment No. 11.
On the whole question of the general trend in exports to Iran, we are told that in 1978 the total amount of exports to Iran was £500 million. By 1979 it had been reduced by 69 per cent. to £232 million. By 1980 it had increased by 50 per cent. to £350 million. It seems to me that that is an expanding market which Britain can rightfully claim will have a bearing on the number of manufacturing jobs we are able to create even under the difficult industrial strategy that has been introduced by this Government. These particular amendments are about ensuring that we create work and jobs and maintain jobs at home.
Amendment No. 11, as I have said, is a constituency amendment, which will commend itself to any hon. Member of the House who recognises that in his constituency

he may well have factory closures or short-time working.
I am one of those hon. Members—and I do not believe they are exclusively on the Labour side of the House; I think that they exist even on the Government Bill. We know that it will damage our Front Bench—who pour contempt on the constituents' interests. We have had a number of statements from Government Members saying that they do not believe the order will work because they accept that it will be bypassed. I only wish that the Government would see reason and withdraw the Bill even at this late stage and ensure that we are all able to protect our constituency interests.

Mr. McNamara: I wish to refer to amendment No. 8. I am glad that the Minister of State is in his place. Yesterday, in the Second Reading debate, he said:
Subsection 2(2)(b) excludes contracts with banks or other financial institutions for the provision of banking or other financial services. Restrictions already operate in this area and have been in force since the end of last year, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear in the House. The restrictions have been in force on the basis of guidance to major British institutions. They have worked satisfactorily and it does not seem sensible to legislate where an existing arrangement is working quite well.
I asked the hon. Gentleman:
What does the Minister mean by ' guidance '? Is it legislative power, a word in the ear or a bit of arm-twisting?
He replied:
No; guidance in this context is guidance. The arrangements have been working satisfactorily. As Mr. Byrd, a current American politician, is in the habit of saying ' If it ain't broke, don't fix it'."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 920.]
A very dangerous precedent is being outlined by a spokesman for the party of law and order, and it is to that point that I wish to address my remarks.
Here we have a matter of the gravest import by any standards. Regrettably, one of the most distasteful aspects of the debate is that we have been talking about jobs, contracts, money and employment while hostages are being held perhaps in fear of their lives. In the debate to which we have been forced by the Government, we have posed as the champions of law and order and the upholding of principles in the decent conduct of people and nations.
Whereas every contract, every future contract and every renewable contract in the greater part of British industry will be subject to the provisions of the Bill, a major part of British invisible earnings and a major part of the City operations will not be subject to regulations laid before the House.
That is a wrong attitude for us to take. We should be seeking to establish that if these regulations and laws are necessary they should be properly policed and enforced, and open to the careful examination of all who are concerned with these matters. Thus we would be able to see that there was proper parity and fairness of treatment among individuals, whether in banking, the construction industry or manufacturing industry.

This amendment is important for that reason and that is why, Mr. Crawshaw, when you come to consider the amendments, I hope that you will call a Division. I believe that the provision is discriminatory and wrong.

I gave an undertaking that I would not speak for too long. I wished to make a point of principle on this part of the Bill. I hope I have kept to my undertaking and I hope that, in turn, we may have a Division on this issue.

Mr. Rowlands: In one sense Ministers and the Government have no one to blame but themselves for the confusion and uncertainty that have been created by the Bill and in particular by this clause. The reason for this lengthy and important debate is that the full range of amendments that cover the clause are, as many of my hon. Friends have said, the only means we have of probing and discovering what the detailed intentions of the Government are in the Bill, though there will be another opportunity to which I shall refer shortly.
The confusion and uncertainty have arisen because of the way in which the Government have chosen to bring the issue of sanctions before the House. The Government have not taken the opportunity to bring forward a decent Bill incorporating the full range of possible sanctions and the enabling power for

those sanctions and subsequent orders. They have decided not to do that.
Nor have the Government decided to rest their case on existing legislation, namely, the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. There we have an odd, curious and difficult mixture of legislation. One of the reasons why the uncertainty and confusion reign is that the Government depend on two pieces of legislation—one going back to 1939 which was brought into the House as a war measure and this much shorter enabling Bill concerned with future contracts for services which may or may not arise.
Those of my hon. Friends who have spoken have raised fundamental problems and there have been occasional jibes and grimaces from the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends as though the issues raised by my hon. Friends were not important. As a result of the manner in which the Bill has been introduced and because of the lack of adequate explanation there is a danger that firms and jobs will be blighted in key areas and in key firms.
It is important that when the Minister replies to these amendments he clarifies some points and nails a number of fears. If the concern and fears that have been expressed during the debate are unreal and unfounded, for goodness sake let the Minister spell out the meaning of the Bill in clear language. He certainly did not do so in his reply yesterday.
The difficulty that has faced the Committee is that we do not know or fully appreciate how the combination of the proposed legislation and the 1939 Act will work. What will be the combination of powers as a result of using the 1939 Act together with the proposed legislation? What will be the consequences of using the two pieces of legislation?
I have not heard whether Merthyr Tydfil is affected. I have tried to relate the statements by Ministers on Second Reading and in interventions in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the objective in the Bill and to the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the implementation of the January Security Council resolution. Will the powers in the Bill and the 1939 Act


ensure that the whole of that resolution is implemented? I wonder whether the Government will be able to implement that resolution when the Bill is passed. I am not sure whether the combination of the Bill and the Act covers the Security Council resolution. We are entitled to know which bits of the resolution are covered.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that he is on an extremely important and substantive issue. Section 7(1) of the 1939 Act states:
Where a person about to export goods from the United Kingdom, in the course of making entry thereof before shipment, makes a declaration as to the ultimate destination thereof, and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have reason to suspect that the declaration is untrue in any material particular, the goods may be detained until the Commissioners are satisfied as to the truth of the declaration, and, if the Commissioners are not so satisfied, the goods shall be forfeited.
How do we know the ultimate destination of goods? It is all very well blithely to refer to the 1939 Act, but that Act was put together for the purposes of the Second World War. Suddenly to resurrect the difficult provisions in section 7 will create difficulty and a lawyers' paradise.

Mr. Rowlands: That is why we sought, in an amendment which was not selected, to ensure that any action under the 1939 Act should be subject to parliamentary procedures. We have had a verbal assurance on that. However, it should be included in the legislation.
One of the curious aspects of the clause is that it takes up as much space specifying what is not included as it does describing those matters which are included.

The Second Deputy Chairman: This is not a "clause stand part" debate. I hope that the hon. Member will refer to one of the amendments.

Mr. Rowlands: I wish to refer to the amendment which is designed to delete clause 1(2)(b). That deals with exclusions Half of the clause deals with exclusions. I believe that I am in order.
Earlier in the debate we said that one of the curious aspects of the Bill was that, while there were certain exclusions, they did not include the exclusion of food and medicine—although that is a deliberate exclusion in the Security

Council resolution. Paragraph 2(a) of the resolution states:
shall prevent the sale or supply…of all items, commodities, or products, except food, medicine, and supplies intended strictly for medical purposes".
When the Minister replies, will he say why those exclusions are not included in the Bill? He said that he would not dream of introducing orders, but he should not have introduced orders about existing contracts for banking and financial institutions. Why did he not choose to exclude—as did the Security Council—
food, medicine and supplies intended strictly for medical purposes 
—words taken directly from the Security Council resolution, to which, apparently, the whole of the Bill relates?

Mr. Ioan Evans: I do not wish to labour the point, but earlier in the proceedings the Minister uttered a significant statement. I raised the question of contracts relating to imports and exports. The Minister intervened and said that the Bill related to exports but not to imports. If the Minister is to maintain his position that the Bill provides for one-way trade sanctions against exports to Iran, there should have been an exclusion amendment. My right hon. Friend mentioned the 1939 Act, yet the Bill deals only with exports to Iran.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not wish to do the Minister's job for him, but, presumably, the reason for that is that the Security Council's resolution relates to exports to Iran. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Minister will have the power to prevent any form of imports from Iran under the 1939 Act. That adds value to the point that I have made. The House is in a dilemma about the handling of the sanctions—if they are to have any effect—because the powers under an old piece of legislation will be as appropriate as, if not more appropriate than, the powers in the Bill. It is that balance and mix which causes worry and confusion.
The orders under the 1939 Act will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have been given a verbal assurance that they will be brought to the House in some way or another, but they will not be brought under any parliamentary control in the way in which orders under the Bill will be brought under control.


Therefore, we have every reason to be worried and concerned.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to delete lines 16 to 18 of clause 1, which relates to the contracts of banking and financial institutions. The House was thrown into confusion yesterday when the Minister said that guidelines had been in existence from the end of last year. This morning we went to the Library of the House to find out where the guidelines had been deposited, so that we might know exactly why the subsection had been included. Why have the contracts for banking and financial institutions been excluded from the Bill when contracts involving car workers' jobs have not been excluded? We have received no explanation about that, and I hope that the Minister will give an explanation when he replies.
Because of my own experience in office, I can understand and appreciate why the Government wish to maintain a certain amount of commercial confidence. If that is to be the Minister's argument, let me anticipate it straight away. It is all very well for commercial confidence to be maintained, by the guidance that was given by the administrative agreement and, presumably, a voluntary relationship between the Government, Whitehall and the banks and financial institutions, if no public action is to be taken with regard to sanctions. But the moment the Government decide to bring orders before the House of Commons to stop trade or a contract of any form, the public have a right to know what else is going on and what other action is being taken.
9 pm
If there were no orders—I hope that I can carry Conservative Members with me—and no bans on any kind of public contracts could have a potential and clear effect on the jobs of people in various firms or constituencies and areas, the voluntary agreement between the banks, the financial institutions and the Government on how to handle Iranian commercial relationships should remain wholly confidential. That is a voluntary commercial agreement However, the moment one starts to move into the area of public prohibition of contracts, which is what the Bill is about, and the promulgation of orders that say "You shall not

accept this order and you shall stop this export", people whose jobs may be affected and firms that may find themselves in financial difficulty have every right to ask " Is that happening to others, such as the banks and finance houses, as well?"
It would be an outrageous proposition if the sacrifice in the name of sanctions on Iran were limited to car workers' jobs in Coventry or elsewhere without our knowing whether or not a similar sacrifice had been made by those who were involved in financial dealings of one kind or another. That is the material and distinctive point to which I should like the Minister to reply. He cannot rest his case on the pure and simple argument that it is commercially confidential administrative guidance, voluntarily agreed. He can certainly do so until he makes the first order, but as soon as he makes the first order he must make public the whole range of measures that are in force, whether voluntarily or by law, in relation to sanctions on Iran.
The other major aspect that has arisen as a result of the amendments relates to the renewal and extension of existing contracts. Many of my hon. Friends raised very strong points. Ministers may feel that they are bogies that have been put forward in order to frighten hon. Members into opposing the Bill. They may say" You are creating unnecessary problems for yourselves and firms and creating unnecessary worry and concern." There is one simple way to remove that uncertainty, and there is one certain way to remove the potential blight that could be created—and that is for the Minister to say that all existing contracts are safeguarded and that the renewal and extension of existing contracts are safeguarded, so that we have a clear and unequivocal view.
I have served in Government. There can be no greater art than Foreign Office drafting capacity. But at least the Minister of State does not come from the Foreign Office. However, this is not an occasion for weasel words or for diplomatic language. There is a need for a clear and unequivocal statement regarding the renewal and extension of existing contracts, as well as the position of a host of firms, as many of my hon. Friends pointed out.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to allay the fears and suspicions that I have voiced, so that we may move on to other important aspects of the Bill. The most important requirement is to erase the potential blight that may be created by uncertainty. I have in mind the doubts and concerns that have been expressed and the ambiguities and ambivalence of the Government's policy on sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Parkinson: In the earlier part of the afternoon I was grateful for my training in Committee on Finance Bills, when I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who never ceased to surprise Committees by producing letters from virtually every chartered accountant in Scotland who had some interesting and obscure point to raise. I was glad that I had had some early training as I listened to the hon. Gentleman's interesting, albeit slightly long, speech.
I was not quite sure that the hon. Gentleman was quite sure about his attitude to the Bill and what he was most worried about. He gave us a graphic description of his knowledge of geography and how to get goods from A through B to C. He was demonstrating that rings could be run around the Bill and that it was a measure that nobody needed to bother about. He then argued that the Bill would put half the British labour force out of work and that it would do immense damage to a wide range of business. He gave us a little pen picture of everyone.
It may help the Committee if I explain our present position. When the Foreign Ministers met on 22 April, they committed themselves to returning to their countries and putting on to their statute books, if they needed to, legislation which would give them the power to implement, should they decide to do so, the United Nations resolution on sanctions, which was passed early in January but was vetoed by the Russians.
At the end of our proceedings, if they ever come to an end and if the Bill is enacted, we shall have a measure on the statute book that will add to the powers that already exist in the 1939 Act and will enable the Government to meet their commitment. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs returns to

the Council of Ministers on Saturday, he will have fulfilled his pledge. He will have at his disposal a range of powers. We have entered certain provisos about the use of the powers. We shall use them only in concert with our European partners.
Some hon. Members have asked "What happens if other countries have not provided themselves with the relevant powers?" If that happens, there will be no question of the powers that our Foreign Secretary has being used. It is a fundamental part of the scheme that the powers will be used only in concert and that all the countries concerned will have to have powers to take similar steps before any country will be called on to implement any action.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has sat on the Treasury Bench and become irritated from time to time. I do not doubt for a moment his deep concern for his constituents. I respect the way in which he is voicing those concerns and ensuring that his constituents' views and worries are aired in this place. If I was a little short with him from time to time, I apologise for that. I recognise that he has a real concern.
The Government have put themselves in the position of meeting a commitment. We are not going to move any faster than, or to move out of concert with, our allies. For instance, if cars cannot go from Britain from Iran, they will not be able to go from France to Iran. That is because the countries concerned have committed themselves to taking identical powers to stop the transfer of goods.

Mr. David Stoddart: The Minister does not know the French.

Mr. Parkinson: That eventuality will not arise.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I have listened to a great deal from Opposition Members. Perhaps they will listen in silence for a few moments as I reply to the debate.
I shall set something of a precedent. I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which they were taken. I shall answer the case for the amendments one at a time. The Government will not accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3, for the


simple reason that they would undermine the Bill's purpose. If the amendments were accepted, the Government would not have the power to meet the commitments that the Foreign Secretary gave at the meeting on 22 April. They would deny him some of the powers that he would need if we were to implement the Security Council resolution.
Amendment No. 4 has continually preoccupied the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). The amendment appears to be based on a misconception. There is no intention that the powers under the Bill, or the powers under the 1939 Act, should be used to control the import of oil products. This is not dealt with in the Security Council's draft resolution. We do not export oil products to Iran on any substantial scale. There are some small exports of oil. That is hardly a surprising statement. The hon. Member for Aberdare has made his point, and I accept it. Theoretically, it would be possible to do what he said. However, the Bill will be used to implement only these powers and the sanctions resolution. There is no intention that the Bill should control oil imports.

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman. To my certain knowledge, he has raised this point four times.
The hon. Members for West Lothian, for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett,) for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised a question on amendment No. 8. It seeks to remove restrictions on financial transactions. The arguments are wide ranging. We heard the bankers versus the workers argument. The Government are supposed to care about bankers but not about workers. We are supposed to be looking after our City friends. It was totally predictable that that argument would be advanced.
The measures concerned with the limitation of new credits on loans, the availability of deposit facilities and related matters are among those envisaged in paragraph 2(c) of the resolution before the Security Council. Hon. Members will be aware that we are already applying

similar restrictions, on the basis of the dreaded guidance, to all major British banks. The banks have accepted a limitation on their right to carry on the business of extending further credit and of accepting further deposits. They accepted that limitation on their business at the end of last year. Indeed, I think they did so on 29 December. The banks have been operating—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The banks have been operating with limited rights as regards business with Iran. They accepted voluntarily restrictions on their opportunities to do business with Iran. Far from favouring them, we are simply saying that voluntary arrangements are already in being. They meet the requirements of the Security Council resolution. There is, therefore, no need to include such measures in the Bill. This measure does not bestow any privileges on the banks. It confirms their acceptance of a limitation on their powers to do business. That limitation has already been in place for several months.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: I shall not give way. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, but the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has only just come into the Chamber.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Only one hon. Member may speak at a time.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister ensure that guidance is made available in the Library?

Mr. Parkinson: I seem to remember that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) used regularly to give a certain reply on Thursday afternoons—"Not next week".

Mr. Rowlands: Why not?

Mr. Parkinson: Because at present, as the hon. Gentleman said, matters of commercial confidentiality and banking confidentiality are involved. The hon. Gentleman himself said that, as and when orders are made, perhaps the Opposition


would feel it right to demand that information. He said that there were limits and that commercial confidentialities were involved, and the banks are operating restrictions under the supervision of the Governor.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Parkinson: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman will not interrupt me again, because I shall not give way.
There is nothing more that I can say except that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are not soundly based and are misconceived.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Parkinson: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Cryer: Disgraceful !

Mr. Parkinson: I move on to amendment No. 9, on which again—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Lothian addressed the Committee for nearly two hours this afternoon. He repeated himself on innumerable occasions. He went on a great tour of Europe and of factories in Scotland. He is the last person who has any right to show any signs of irritation.
I now turn to amendment No. 9. This is a very important amendment and there is tremendous concern about this point. The purpose of the amendment is to widen the exception in the Bill relating to existing contracts by providing that renewals and extensions of existing contracts should be excluded from the powers in the Bill. Such a provision would be too wide and could lead to abuse of the exception in regard to existing contracts. I remind the House that the Bill deals only with the question of future contracts. Therefore, we believe that the amendment would be too wide and would produce an unsatisfactory result.
The Government intend to be flexible on questions of renewals or extensions of existing contracts. We recognise that frequently a new contract is required for purely technical reasons—to set a slightly increased price in view of inflation or

to extend a delivery date which cannot be met. That kind of case, where it is in substance the same contract, we shall regard as a contract made before the date on which the order is made and, therefore, excluded from the powers in the Bill. Where, on the other hand, there is a major change in the terms of a contract or where a contract which has come to an end is renewed, we propose to regard this as a new contract. But each contract will have to be considered on its merits. It will be a question of fact. [Interruption.] I intend to come to the hon. Member for West Lothian and the question of Talbot.

Mr. Dalyell: It is absolutely unreal, as the Minister knows.

Mr. Cryer: What right of appeal is there?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Nuneaton—unlike his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, who seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice enormously—raised a very serious matter. He said that there is widespread concern among Talbot workers. He gave us the figures yesterday, and he repeated them today, of the number of people who are involved as subcontractors, suppliers, or direct employees of Talbot. I will state again what the position is.
The Foreign Secretary is going to the meeting on Saturday with wide enabling powers. The Government have given a great deal of thought and care to the situation of Talbot and to safeguarding Talbot's position as much as we can. The Foreign Ministers will decide what form sanctions will take and orders will then be made. However, we realise the importance of this contract—its importance to the company and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We know that other companies which have similar concerns are in the market. We are not seeking to adopt measures which will harm us more than they will harm Iran.
I cannot be specific, because the Foreign Ministers will decide on Saturday. I hope that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, and that the hon. Gentleman realises that our Foreign Secretary will attend the meeting in full awareness of the problems of Talbot and the need to ensure that that important contract is safeguarded.

Mr. Les Huckfield: The Minister is trying to be helpful. However, PSA Citroen, which owns all of Talbot apart from the 10 per cent. owned by Talbot United States, is a private French company. It is not Government controlled. How can the Minister prevent that company from shifting the contract from a United Kingdom to a French source?

Mr. Parkinson: It is impossible for this Government to order the commercial decisions of private French companies, regardless of a sanctions order. That power was never even in the hands of the previous Labour Administration. Why should the company wish to switch the contract? Compliments were paid to its productivity. If the hon. Gentleman has such a low opinion of the owners of Talbot, why does he fight so hard for his workers? Surely he feels that the company is to be trusted, that it has made a good investment and that his constituents are worth backing and will do a good job. If they continue to do so, I do not see why the Bill should influence the company to make that decision.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He has misled the House.

Mr. Parkinson: I have not misled the House. I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been in the Chamber.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. May I respectfully inform the Minister that we are in Committee? It is therefore, courteous to give way.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is up to the Minister whether he gives way.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he does not have powers to deal with a private company operating in this country? Under the Industry Act 1975, the Minister has powers to require a foreign-owned company to behave in a certain way. The Minister should stay within the rules of order and make accurate representations and respond to representations made to him.

The Chairman: It is up to the Minister to make his own speech. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for the debate. He comes in, promptly mishears what I say, misquotes me and expects to be taken seriously.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton said that a privately owned French company, based in France, had the power to take—

Mr. Cryer: The Minister does not know; he is only an amiable bar-fly.

Mr. Parkinson: I regard those remarks from an hon. Gentleman who spends more than his share of time down in the nether regions as offensive.

Mr. Cryer: I do not know to what the Minister is referring, but it appears that he is accusing me of spending time in the bar. That is not true and the remark should be withdrawn.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Chairman: The nether regions of the House cover a large area. If the Minister was referring to the bar, I am sure that he will withdraw the remark.

Mr. Parkinson: You are right, Mr. Weatherill, in suggesting that the nether regions cover a wide area. I was trying to answer a serious point. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said that a privately owned French company had control of the Talbot company. I said, simply, that this Government are not in a position to give orders to a privately owned French-based company. That must be a correct statement of the facts. I was talking about giving orders to the controlling parent company based in France. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that this is not within the powers of this Government or any other British Government.
Amendment No. 10 seems to us rather baffling. I was not much clearer having listened to the hon. Member for Stockport, North move it. I should like to explain why I find it puzzling. In the circumstances of this legislation, it seems unnecessary to make a specific exclusion of contracts made as a result of carrying out international obligations. Any contract related to, or connected with, Iran falling within the terms of clause 1 of the


Bill and resulting from the carrying out of international obligations would almost certainly result from international obligations owed to Iran. We are not aware of any obligations owed to Iran under any international agreement to enter into a new contract. We could not understand what the amendment was aimed at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said he hoped that this amendment would not stand in the way of disaster relief. I am happy to give the assurance that it would not be used and could not be used in that way. It would not be the Government's intention to do so.
I turn now to amendment No. 11. The Government accept that any implementation of sanctions may cause losses to our own people as well as to Iran and to Iranian nationals and enterprises. Indeed, it is for that reason, among others, that we used every possible diplomatic means at our disposal before we moved towards taking sanctions. I reminded the House yesterday that even at the 22 April meeting the Foreign Ministers divided their actions into two stages—political actions that were taken pretty well imediately, and then a warning to Iran that if progress was not made towards release of the hostages further steps would have to be taken. The Government have not been rushing towards this step. They have been forced gradually to take action because it has been requested by our American allies and because it is the only means left at our disposal, every diplomatic channel having been used to put pressure on the Iranian Government.
We think that clear exclusion, on the face of the Bill, of existing contracts should go a long way to minimise any loss to British firms. There will be no element of retroactivity about the provisions of the Bill. Firms can do much to safeguard their position before sanctions are actually implemented by Order in Council. But the Government have never previously accepted a liability to pay for losses when sanctions have been carried out on a collective, international basis. We feel that, in the present climate, this would not be the time to set a precedent.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has made an important statement about the position of existing contracts and the fact that the Bill is not retroactive and that there is, therefore, no need for compensation. Would he extend that argument equally to the powers under the 1939 Act? That is our concern and worry.

Mr. Parkinson: I told the House last night, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that orders under the 1939 Act do not require the approval of the House. We have, however, committed ourselves to taking parallel action that will give the House a chance to consider any orders made under the Act. If the House showed its disapproval of those measures, any orders made would be revoked.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister made an important statement about the retroactivity of the provision. He said that the Bill in no way affects existing contracts and that there is, therefore, no need for any form of compensation. Will he make the same statement about the powers that the Government might exercise under the 1939 Act? That is where the worry and concern lie—over the existing contracts.

Mr. Parkinson: I explained that the Government cannot commit themselves so specifically, because the Bill simply adds to the range of powers that the Foreign Secretary will need if he is to meet the obligation that he undertook on 22 April. The Bill is an enabling measure, as is the 1939 Act. How these Acts are used will depend on the decision to be taken at the weekend. I have pointed out that the Foreign Secretary is aware of the importance of existing contracts that could be affected by the 1939 Act. He will go to the meeting with that very much in mind.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive spirit in which he is trying to respond to the debate. Can he tell us how the Secretary of State for Employment would respond to an application by a company affected by a 1939-type sanctions provision, under the short-term working compensation scheme? How would that be received by the Government?

Mr. Parkinson: I should like to be helpful, but the hon. Member must address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I cannot believe that he really expects me to stand at the Dispatch Box now and respond on this important issue. It will be treated very seriously by my right hon. Friend, to whom I suggest he writes.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, covering a large number of amendments. I have tried to answer all the points, but there were so many specific matters that it has not been possible for me to deal with them all. I hope that the

Committee, having listened to my explanation why the Government do not find any of the amendments acceptable, will accept my advice. I hope that the hon. Members who have tabled the amendments will not press them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 53.

Division No. 291]
AYES
[9.33 pm


Alexander, Richard
Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Alton, David
Gower, Sir Raymond
Newton, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Normanton, Tom


Aspinwall, Jack
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Banks, Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Parkinson, Cecil


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parris, Matthew


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Best, Keith
Hannam, John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawksley, Warren
Percival, Sir Ian


Blackburn, John
Heddle, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bradford, Rev. R.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hill, James
Rathbone, Tim


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brinton, Tim
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Renton, Tim


Brittan, Leon
Hooson, Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howells, Geraint
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brotherton. Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Julian


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rossi, Hugh


Budgen, Nick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Silvester, Fred


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sims, Roger


Cockeram, Eric
Lamont, Norman
Speed, Keith


Colvin, Michael
Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lee, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, lain


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dover, Denshore
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanley, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Macfarlane, Nell
Steen, Anthony


Durant, Tony
McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Dykes, Hugh
Marland, Paul
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Elliott, Sir William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Norman


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Thornton, Malcolm


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Trippier, David


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Viggers, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Waller, Gary


Glyn, Dr Alan
Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Myles, David
Watson, John


Gorst, John
Needham, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)




Whitney, Raymond
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wickenden, Keith
Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Peter Brooke


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Young, Sir George (Acton)
and Mr. John Cope.


NOES


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Sheerman, Barry


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Huckfield, Les
Stoddart, David


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Straw, Jack


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Tinn, James


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechtord)
Kilfedder, James A.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dixon, Donald
Lamond, James
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Welsh, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
McCusker, H.
Winnick, David


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)



Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, John (Newton)
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Kevin McNamara


Ewing, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 53, Noes 181.

Division No. 292]
AYES
[9.43 pm


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Sheerman, Barry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Soley, Clive


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Spearing, Nigel


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Carmichael, Neil
Home Robertson, John
Stoddart, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Huckfield, Les
Straw, Jack


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dslyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kilfedder, James A.
Welsh, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Winnick, David


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)



Dubs, Alfred
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Alton, David
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ancram, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Cockeram, Eric
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Colvin, Michael
Gorst, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cope, John
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Grieve, Percy


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dorrell, Stephen
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore
Gummer, John Selwyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Elliott, Sir William
Harrison, Rt Hon Waller


Brinton, Tim
Emery, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Brittan, Leon
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fairgrieve, Russell
Henderson, Barry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Budgen, Nick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Forman, Nigel
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Marcus
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)




Hurd, Hon Douglas
Myles, David
Sproat, lain


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Stanley, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steen, Anthony


King, Rt Hon Tom
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Stevens, Martin


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lamont, Norman
Parris, Matthew
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Latham, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, John (Oxford)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Lee, John
Penhaligon. David
Tebbit, Norman


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Sir Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lermox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Donald


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Raison, Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Lyell, Nicholas
Rathbone, Tim
Tinn, James


Macfarlane, Nell
Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


McQuarrie, Albert
Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Marland, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wakeham, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Waller, Gary


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Rossi, Hugh
Ward, John


Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Watson, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wickenden, Keith


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred
Wolfson, Mark


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)



Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Speller, Tony
Mr. David Waddington and


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Mr. Tom Newton.


Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Will you allow us to divide on amendments Nos. 8 and 11 after the next debate?

The Chairman: I am pleased to confirm that I shall allow Divisions on amendments Nos. 8 and 11 after we have debated amendment No. 35.

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
' (1A) No Order in Council shall be made under this section until the Security Council of the United Nations has after the passing of this Act discussed the detention of hostages referred to in subsection (1) of this section.'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments:

No. 36, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
'(1B) No Order in Council under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State has previously certified to each House of Parliament that each of the states listed in the Schedule to this Act has adopted legislation to the like effect or has made provision to the like effect as that made in the Order in Council.'
No. 39, new schedule—States having adopted sanctions legislation—
France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, the Republic of Ireland and Luxembourg.'.

Mr. Rowlands: The amendments raise two issues. Amendments Nos. 35 and 39 deal with the diplomatic moves that we believe should take place before any order is enforced. However, amendment No. 36 deals with the way in which we and other EEC countries act. I shall deal with that separately.
The case for amendment No. 35 was set out powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) yesterday. It is fundamental to our approach that we cannot and should not see the American diplomatic hostages issue as an East-West confrontation or as a special United States-Iran relationship. The matter is not entirely bilateral. It should not be interpreted as an East-West issue.
As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we should see the hostages issue as an international diplomatic problem, which is subject to international law and which has been sustained by nation States even when they have been on the point of hostility or war. The principle of allowing diplomatic personnel to leave the territory of a nation even after a declaration of war has been a fundamental and profound principle, which nations have upheld. That is what is being challenged by the detention of the American diplomats.
It is tragic that the diplomatic hostages issue has been overtaken by subsequent events, in particular by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There has been a break in international consensus on the hostages issue. Last December the Security Council unanimously voted to condemn the action. It called upon the Iranian authorities to obtain the release of the hostages and to allow them to return home. On 15 December the International Court of Justice made an important ruling that reaffirmed the principle and called upon the Iranian authorities to release the hostages. It is important to remind ourselves that that is at the heart of the issue. It is not a "back Carter" issue.
When Ministers presented the case yesterday in those terms, they did an injustice to the issue. It involves the way in which the international community will back international law and the customary conventions that allow diplomatic representatives to be free from

the brutal treatment and imprisonment from which the American diplomats now suffer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar said forcefully yesterday, the tragedy of the position is that since last December some of that international consensus has been lost. We believe very strongly that, before anything else, that principle and international understanding about the nature—

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 45.

Division No. 293]
AYES
[10 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer


Alton, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Ancram, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Banks, Robert
Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John


Beith. A. J.
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Best, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Blackburn, John
Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Brittan, Leon
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Moate, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Brown, Michael (Brigg S Sc'thorpe)
Hampson, Dr Keith 
Montgomery, Fergus


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
 Hampson, Dr Keith 
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Budgen, Nick
 Hannam, John 
Murphy Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
 Harrison, Rt Hon Walter 
Myles, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
 Hawksley, Warren 
Needham, Richard


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
 Heddle, John 
Nelson Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
 Henderson, Barry 
Newton, Tony


Clegg, Sir Walter
 Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L 
Normanton, Tom


Cockeram, Eric
 Hill, James 
Onslow, Cranley


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Grantham) 
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cope, John
 Hooson, Tom 
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Costain, A. P.
 Howells, Geraint 
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Crouch David
 Hunt, John(Ravensbourne) 
Parkinson Cecil


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
 Hurd Hon Douglas 
Parris Mathew


Dorrell, Stephen
 Johnston, Russell (Inverness) 
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
 Jopling, Rt Hon Michael 
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dover, Denshore
 Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine 
Penhaligon, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
 Kershaw, Anthony 
Percival, Sir Ian


Durant, Tony
 King, Rt Hon Tom 
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dykes, Hugh
 Knight, Mrs Jill 
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
 Lamont, Norman 
Raison Timothy


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Emery, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John
Rhodes James, Robert




Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanley, John
Wakeham, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridsdale, Julian
Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Hugh
Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd S Stev'nage)


Shersby, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wickenden, Keith


Sims, Roger
Tebbit, Norman
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Speed, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Thompson, Donald
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Thornton, Malcolm



Sproat, lain
Tinn, James
TELLERS POR THE AYES:


Squire, Robin
Trippier, David
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Stanbrook, Ivor




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Skinner, Dennis


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Soley, Clive


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W isles)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John
Stoddart, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Straw, Jack


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Cryer, Bob
Kilfedder, James A.
Welsh, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McCartney, Hugh
Winnick, David


Dixon, Donald
McCusker, H.



Dormand, Jack
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dubs, Alfred
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Question accordingly agreed to.

IRAN (TEMPORARY POWERS) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: As I was saying in moving the amendments it seemed fundamental to our approach that we should not recognise the holding of the American hostages in Tehran as anything other than an issue of East-West relations or bilateral United States-Iran relations. It is a fundamental challenge to international law and the convention within that law. It is tragic that since the understanding and international consensus that was established in December at the United Nations Security Council we have lost some appreciation and understanding of what the issue is all about. That was an inevitable consequence of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the polarising, once again, of the issue in the Security Council after the invasion.
The Security Council voted unanimously to condemn the action of the Soviet Union. It did so on 4 December. It called upon the Government of Iran

to release immediately the American prisoners, to provide them with protection and to allow them to leave the country. That was supported not only by the Western group but by the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic and Third world nations that are represented on the Security Council. We must try to return to that international consensus. It is important that we try to reestablish that relationship as we try to help to obtain the release of the hostages.
As I said, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan intervened. When the Security Council debated the imposition of sanctions and the explicit economic sanctions resolution that was proposed at the Security Council in January, the Soviet Union used its veto. That is the reason for the Bill. If the Soviet Union had not used the veto, we could have implemented sanctions measures under United Nations legislation. That would have been mandatory in any event.
It is worth remembering which nation vetoed the principle of sanctions in January. It was the Soviet Union. It was supported by the German Democratic Republic. However, a host of other countries, including Jamaica, Niger, Tunisia and Norway, voted for the resolution. It might be said that that was not


of very much use, as none of those countries has any meaningful economic relationship with Iran. I speak from my knowledge and experience as the Minister responsible for Caribbean affairs in the previous Labour Government. The Government of Jamaica have taken a strong Third world position on a host of international issues and have been profoundly critical of the West's position in the North-South dialogue and in a number of other international issues.
After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Third world countries of diverse natures stood up and were counted on a strong set of economic sanctions. It is worth trying to re-establish and reconstruct a degree of international consensus on the sad plight and profound issues surrounding the imprisonment of the American diplomats.
10.15 pm
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was critical of the United States. I am sure that Opposition Members understood the position in which the United States Government found themselves. After 160 days of patient diplomatic and political negotiations, it was understandable that they should try to apply additional pressures. I thought that my right hon. Friend made a forceful point. He sought to point out that it was a tactical error to go to a small group of Western Powers, Japan and one or two other countries.
I cannot believe that the State Department and the White House do things unwittingly. On second thoughts, I can. There are enough advisers around to give the State Department good advice. The effect of their action, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was to polarise the issue still further. As a result, the hostages have become a source of greater argument between East and West, which has brought into play the whole question of confidence in the Western Alliance. That is one of the saddest consequences of events since last December.
It is important to try to re-establish an international consensus on the fundamental issues that have been raised. That should be our major diplomatic and political priority. Before any sanctions orders are introduced, moves should be made to take the issue back to the Security Council. Again, I shall try to

anticipate the Minister's case. He may argue that there is not much point in doing that, because the Soviet Union has a veto. He might argue that it would be a waste of time.
I shall give a few reasons why this is probably the best approach. A return to the Security Council would represent only one part of a host of political moves and developments. Foreign Office Ministers have to deal with these problems. If a Minister tries to extricate a citizen, or citizens, from a foreign prison, he will realise that it is politically unappealing to have to say that we must be patient, or that a certain avenue must first be explored. Indeed, the imprisonment may be official or unofficial. In my time, I have had to deal with both types of case. It is politically unappealing to have to say that one cannot say, as yet, what is happening and to give assurances that attempts are being made to make contact with the authorities.
I vividly recall that the Tyler family were caught by a group of the Tigrean liberation movement. We spent months endeavouring to make contact. We were successful. Of course, that had no political popular appeal at all. Often one has to bite one's tongue and persuade aggrieved relations and aggrieved Parliaments or Congresses that that is the only way forward. Sometimes it is the only way forward, along with, obviously, the bringing to bear of such pressure as one can bring to bear—diplomatic, political, or even economic in certain circumstances. It has no political appeal, but on many occasions it is the only way forward.
As my vote last night indicated, I do not oppose the principle of economic pressure or the use of possible sanctions in the context of the hostages. However, I believe that there should not be a headlong rush into sanctions. There should be a longish pause and further diplomatic moves. We are suggesting one rather important political move that could take place, namely, to return to the Security Council. We do so for three basic reasons.
The first reason, as the Minister of State acknowledged in his speech yesterday, is that, in a way, action by the Security Council is much more influential than the partial implementation of


sanctions by a few nations. There is a genuinely strong case to be made that despite everything, despite the rebuffs that have already happened, we should try to reunite the international community, and particularly the Security Council, and get some international diplomatic and political moves going on a stronger and more forceful basis—perhaps to return to the Security Council not merely for an endorsement of the original economic sanctions that were vetoed by the Soviet Union but for a possible variety of measures. Again, I do not even dream of anticipating any drafting of such a resolution, which might promote further the concept of diplomatic and political initiative.
Although Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary-General, suffered a serious rebuff when he went to Tehran, at least he went there and at least there was then a hope that something would come out of it. All right; it fell apart then. But again, coming back to my personal experience, one experiences a number of disappointments. One has many such experiences in the business of trying to extricate citizens from various situations—in this case an extreme situation. Nevertheless, one must not give up trying to utilise this option.
Surely it would be a major prize for the United States and for all of us to re-engage the United Nations Secretary-General himself and others in the task of trying to resolve the issue of the hostages. That would be an important prize. The question posed in the amendment is whether, if we move into sanctions and act on individual orders at present, we damage that opportunity or make it less likely, so that the hope becomes dashed.
On that ground, we ask the Government to commit themselves through the amendment, and obviously in concert with their partners, to take this issue back to the Security Council to see whether it can utilise the international machinery available to resolve this sad problem of the hostages.
Secondly, the value of returning to the Security Council, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar said yesterday, is that it would help to reestablish the principle that this Iranian

offence is of an international character and not of a bilateral United States-Iran character. It is sad that the fundamental issue involved in the retention of the hostages has been partially forgotten. Perhaps by going back to the Security Council we could reinforce the fundamental principle involved in the brutal imprisonment of the American diplomats.
The proposal could also form the basis of the opening of talks with the Soviet Union over the hostages. The Soviet Union has no vested interest in supporting the imprisonment. The Soviet Union or its satellites could find themselves in a similar situation. Part of its justification for the events in Afghanistan was that its citizens were being brutally murdered. The Soviet Union does not have a vested interest in fostering the retention of the diplomatic hostages.

Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the Soviet Union is not revelling a little in the humiliation of the United States? Is he certain that, although we know that none of the Western Powers would behave as badly, the Soviets may not be fairly confident that their own people, like the people in the Iranian embassy in London, would be safeguarded by the Western Powers?

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot answer that. I am not a member of the Politburo.
Last December there was a degree of unanimity over the hostages. The Soviet Union did not obstruct the resolution in the Security Council. The trouble began when Security Council agreement was sought for a host of powerful sanctions, which are not fully implemented in this legislation, even combined with the 1939 Act. Let us put the matter to the test and go back to the Security Council to see whether a group of nations can reconstruct the consensus, moving on from the December position. Sanctions orders now might make that more difficult. That is the basis of our amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I like the hon. Gentleman's proposal and arguments. I suspect that my hon. Friends will see much merit in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, is it not open to the Government in any event to go back to the Security Council, with our American


friends, if they think it appropriate, and use all the machinery that the hon. Gentleman describes, if it looks as though it might help? With the hon. Gentleman's experience of the Foreign Office, does he agree that it may be a trifle inflexible to build into statute law the provision that the machinery may be used but that it should not be compelling as a matter of statute?

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman's point is reasonable. Our reaction will depend on the Minister's reply. The amendment is a major vehicle to raise the vitally important issue of the way in which diplomatic and political pressure may be used. That is a long-standing basic principle of an amendment of this kind. It does not invalidate the nature of the amendment or the arguments used in favour of the amendment. Our approach, I believe, is potentially more hopeful. The only hopeful sign in an otherwise gloomy situation is the potential meeting between Secretary of State Muskie and Mr. Gromyko within a week or so.
10.30 pm
We hope that Ministers at meetings this weekend will take no decisions that make even less likely any chance of progress. One hopes that the possible meeting between the United States Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union will not become too much of a set piece.
The deadline of 17 May is nonsense. That is not to say that there is no case for deadlines, although my experience is that they cause more problems than they solve. When deadlines are reached or passed, one is forced to take action, even though it may be counter-productive, or one can pretend that the deadline was not meant. In this case, there is a reasonable reason, not an excuse, for not accepting 17 May as an absolute deadline. The attempt to solve the hostages problem by a military rescue operation was an enormous event. It has had a profound effect in Iran and its reverberations are felt throughout the Middle East. The deadline of 17 May, formulated before that event, has less relevance.
I hope that Ministers, when they meet at the weekend, will not feel themselves bound to leap and jump around in an excessive manner that could be counter-productive

to the processes that the Opposition believe should happen.
The House is owed an explanation of or statement about the attitude and approach that Ministers will adopt towards this weekend's meeting. The defence by the Minister for Trade, on the last set of amendments, was that he could not allay our suspicions completely, or answer specific points, because decisions on sanctions would be thrashed out at this weekend's meeting. That is a reasonable point in some respects, but the Committee is entitled, especially when we are asked to pass a Bill giving the Government powers to implement decisions that may be made this weekend, to know the Government's attitude towards the meeting.
It is not a question whether they might have to compromise with the eight Governments or work out a collective agreement. We have a right, in the context of this amendment and the amendment that we are moving in relation to our EEC partners, to know the Government's pitch. Will they suggest the implementation of sanctions X, Y and Z immediately, or will they propose a longer time scale to enable diplomatic moves to take place?
We have been bounced by the Bill. Ministers have argued that we must pass it because commitments were made on, 22 April. Before the Government make any more commitments about the implementation of sanctions, they must tell the House what they intend to say to the other eight Governments. Of course, they must try to work out a collective agreement and must be flexible.

Mr. Dalyell: This is an important point. Are we being asked to buy a proverbial pig in a poke? We understand that there must be flexibility and room for compromise, but surely the Minister of State should be able to outline the Government's starting position. If he says that we cannot discuss such matters, it will be a negation of open government, and I am not sure that on this subject the Committee should put up with secrecy.

Mr. Rowlands: Negotiations and diplomacy sometimes require secrecy, but when the Government bring before the House a Bill that they describe as an


enabling measure, which may subsequently lead to orders being laid, depending on what happens this weekend, we are entitled to ask what will be the Government's position and pitch at that meeting. We appreciate that they have to seek a collective agreement, but we demand a statement on the line that the Government will take with the other eight member States.
There should be major political and diplomatic moves, of which a major part should be a return to the Security Council in an attempt to reconstruct an international consensus based on the fundamental issue at stake—the challenge to the nature of international relationships, conventions and laws represented by the imprisonment of the American hostages.
I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but I ought also to refer to amendment No. 36, which deals with a separate matter. The Minister of State said, on Second Reading yesterday:
We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. We do not intend to take measures that have the effect of delivering trade into the hands of our competitors."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916.]
Basically, that quotation was in the context of our European competitors plus Japan and the United States. The purpose of amendment No. 36 is to ensure that the House will at least know when orders are laid whether we are lagging or jumping ahead.
The Minister of State explained that the Bill arises from decisions taken at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 22 April. He said that it had to be rushed through to meet those commitments. But the House has a right to know whether other EEC Governments have, or will have by 17 May, legislated or decreed powers identical to those sought by the Government. Will the Minister of State spell out what the other eight Governments have done?
With the help of the Library I have carried out my own research, and I have a list of the stages that each European State has reached. But the Bill states that we must be ready by 17 May to implement the equivalent of the sanctions laid down in the Security Council resolution of 17 January. Amendment No. 36 states

that we must know, and the House must know, that all our partners in the EEC will do likewise.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend refers to all our partners. It is a question of the Japanese. During my remarks on amendment No. 2, the Minister of State questioned the fact that around 80 per cent. of Japanese trade with Iran was conducted by six companies and that those six companies only were subject to the embargo. Since then I have provided the Minister with the statement in The Times of 25 April, indicating that that was so. May I ask, through my hon. Friend, who has experience in the Foreign Office, whether this is the case?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) pointed out, when the Japanese make an agreement they stick to it. Those hon. Members who had the good fortune to participate in an IPU visit to Japan in 1969 know that when the Japanese say something they stick to it. But, even in those circumstances, why are our small firms apparently to be subject to the embargo when small Japanese firms will not be subject to it? Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not a Foreign Office Minister at present, but it is incumbent on Ministers at the Foreign Office to say "Yes" or "No" to this point.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that the Minister of State will take note of my hon. Friend's point. It arises from a previous debate, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter in relation to Japan.
In the case of these amendments, which are confined to members of the EEC, we must be told how far each of the Governments of the Nine have gone in implementing, either by decree or by legislation, the commitments made at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 22 April.
Rightly and fundamentally, it is both accepted and unchallenged that each nation within the Nine has the right to decide what sanctions to implement and how to implement them. Although the Council of Ministers has responsibility for these decisions, they are rightly the decisions of each national Government and Parliament. Because there will not be a Council of Ministers report on the issue, it is necessary to establish clearly what measures each of the other nation States within the Nine have taken to implement


the United Nations Security Council resolution, as well as the agreement of 22 April.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to give a running commentary throughout the proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): It is not in order for any hon. Member to speak unless he has been called by the Chair. There is a certain amount of noise at the end of the Chamber which, I hope, will be brought to an end.

Mr. Rowlands: I make that point because we want a statement setting out how far European Governments have proceeded in implementing the agreement of 22 April. This amendment is not only of historic or current concern; it is also futuristic. It intends to ensure that the House is fully informed of what actions will be taken in the future by other European Governments if and when we implement any orders under the Bill on any aspect of sanctions.
Some decisions may well be made this weekend. We shall want to know the position that the Government intend to take, and we also wish to ensure that the House and Parliament are informed in detail of actions that other Governments will take in the future to implement the sanctions. That was the very point made by the Minister of State yesterday, when he said:
We are trying to iron out these differences in order to reach, in practice, a similar result. It is not enough to concert in advance on what measures should be taken. We have to concert throughout on how they are applied."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 917.]
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Parliament is informed at that stage how sanctions that might be imposed by order under the Bill are being implemented by other members of the EEC.

10.45

Mr. Russell Johnston: Supposing the amendment were accepted by the Government, how would the hon. Gentleman like the Government to provide the information? As much of it would be in legal form, to provide it accurately would be a complicated exercise.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that it is complicated. Amendment No. 36 provides that
No Order in Council under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State has previously certified to each House of Parliament that each of the states listed…has adopted legislation to the like effect".
He can do that by making a statement or laying a paper. There are many ways in which the Government can inform the House either of their own position or the position of others. I see no practical or technical problem there.
For the reason given by the Minister of State yesterday, it is important that we should know what the Governments of the other eight members of the EEC are doing about the existing legislative position and about implementing any sanctions that may be agreed at the meeting next weekend or any subsequent meeting. The Minister said yesterday that the Government did not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. It may be the decision of the House that we should lag behind or jump ahead. We are saying that the House has every right to know exactly what other members of the EEC are doing about implementing sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am in harmony with the spirit of the three amendments. However, it is unnecessary to legislate them into the statute. I suggest that the Committee should listen carefully to the assurances that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) has sought from my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He asked that every conceivable diplomatic method should be tried to resolve the problem before entering into economic sanctions, and I am sure that is right.
Last evening, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, in answer to a specific question from me, gave an assurance that every possible diplomatic avenue would be exhausted before orders were brought forward to establish economic pressure. I believe that to be the position. If my hon. Friend is able to reiterate that assurance tonight, it would be unwise to tie the hands of the Government by importing into the Bill specific legislative requirements that could make for the very inflexibility that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)


would not wish to impose upon our diplomacy.
As for the European position, again I believe that we were given an assurance by the Minister for Trade last evening. It is perhaps right that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office should tell us how he intends to advise the Committee that we have been able to reach harmony with our European friends and that we are confident that they are acting in the same way, always bearing in mind that their legislative and administrative processes are different from our own.
The key factor is that the Foreign Secretary put his name and the name of this country to an agreement that was reached. It is important that when he goes to the meeting this weekend he should be able to show that the House of Commons has delivered on the promise that he made. That is important for American reasons and I believe that it is also important for Iranian reasons.
If, as I trust, my hon. Friend is able to say that diplomatic efforts are being made by the Americans at official and unofficial levels, by this country through the multilateral agencies of the United Nations and elsewhere, and through our own bilateral and unofficial approaches, I believe that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, in moving the amendment, will have done a service to the Committee. But in those circumstances I think that he would be unwise to press his amendment to a Division.

Mr. David Winnick: In many ways amendment No. 35 is at the crux of the controversy over the Bill. The main question is what can be done to secure the release of the hostages. There is no difference of opinion about that. Whatever differences we may have about the Iranian situation, past and present, there is no difference of opinion in the House about the hostages. We are unanimous in our desire to secure their release. We are agreed that they should never have been taken hostage in the first place and we certainly wish to see their earliest release.
It is much more a question of how we can achieve that end and help our ally the United States rather than harm ourselves. I see no purpose in harming

our trade and the job security of British people in what is, after all, accepted to be a futile gesture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was right, in moving the amendment, to place so much emphasis on diplomacy. It must be recognised that the hostages are not being held by the Iranian authorities. That is no excuse, and I do not want that to be misunderstood. There is no excuse for the manner in which the Iranian Government are defending the taking of the hostages, but if the hostages were in the custody of Iranian officials the situation would be somewhat better. It is precisely because they are not in such custody and they are being held by people described as students that the situation is fraught with difficulties.
The Government, as I understand it, feel that they have an obligation—in line with the other EEC Governments—to do what they can to help the United States. The essence of the Government's argument today—as it was before the Bill came before the House—is that they are not certain whether sanctions will do any good. Nevertheless, they feel that they have an obligation, since the United States and the Alliance are in difficulties. For all those reasons, the Government argue that it is necessary to act with our EEC partners in imposing sanctions on Iran.
Surely, the best way to help the United States Government is to be perfectly frank and honest with them. If Ministers themselves do not believe that the Bill before us will do any good, why should we deceive the United States? We are not a good friend to our American allies if we deceive them. As has been said on a number of occasions, we should, perhaps, help our American allies in the same way as they helped us in the past by not making futile and unnecessary gestures.
Amendment No. 35 states that no Order in Council shall be made until the Security Council of the United Nations has, after the passing of the Act, discussed the detention of the hostages. It has been said that we can have the Bill and diplomacy at the same time. If sanctions will undermine jobs and trade in the United Kingdom but not secure the release of the hostages, the Bill has no purpose. If the hostages cannot be


released through sanctions, we must fall back on amendment No. 35, which involves diplomacy and a further debate in the Security Council.
I agree that the fact that the Soviet Union vetoed the resolution on a previous occasion does not necessarily mean that it will do so again. Because of the hostility that the Soviet Union met, rightly, as a result of its hostility in Afghanistan, it took a different attitude. When the hostages issue was raised in the Security Council a short time previously, the Soviet Union was willing for the resolution to be adopted.
The diplomatic efforts behind the scenes are as important as a debate in the Security Council. Leading personalities in the Muslim world are not happy about what has happened in Iran. They do not believe that it is a part of the Islamic revolution or a reflection of the Islamic religion. They feel that the situation is fraught with difficulties for the Middle East. They know that it is possible—we hope that it will not occur—that the United States will resort to military action. That is why such people would like a solution to be found.
I hope that I am not being controversial when I say that it would do no harm for the United States Government to admit that they have done a great deal of wrong in Iran in the last 30 years. That does not mean that they should give in to terrorism or humiliate themselves. The United States did a great deal of harm in Iran. I see no reason why they should not admit it.

Mr. Dalyell: Some degree of admission is a precondition of success. Many of the decision-makers in Iran have lost members of their families because of the Shah's secret police, who were helped at various stages by agents who were acting on behalf of the United States Government, or not, as one would prefer to believe, but were at least American citizens. Human nature being what it is, is it not a precondition that there should be a statement of some kind before the hostages are released?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is outside the scope of the amendments. The amendments cover the question whether we should refer the matter to the United Nations before sanctions are imposed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman

will deal with that rather than with what has happened in Iran in the last 20 years.

Mr. Winnick: With respect, Mr. Crawshaw, the taking of the hostages was justified on the basis of what has happened in Iran in the last 25 or 30 years. It is said that the Americans have played such a dubious, bad or, as some would say, evil role in Iran—

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not relevant to the question whether the issue is referred to the United Nations.

11 pm

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. With respect, history did not begin the day that the hostages were taken. That is part of the problem with the attitude of the West—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member had tabled an amendment to discuss that point, he would have been in order. There are not amendments on the Order Paper to discuss events in Iran over the past 30 years. The amendment relates to the question whether we should refer the matter to the United Nations before the sanctions are implemented.

Mr. Winnick: Will it be in order to make a point about what should be stated at the United Nations if the matter is referred to it?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That would not be in order. We could debate all night the sort of things that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but they would not be relevant to the amendment before us.

Mr. Winnick: I accept your point, Mr. Crawshaw. I have established what I wished to say about what should be done about admitting the errors of the past.
I turn to amendment No. 36, which refers to informing the House about provisions that have been made by other EEC countries that apply sanctions. It is an important matter. I submitted an amendment, which was not selected. It is important and relevant, because many constituents are concerned that we could lose trade and jobs could be undermined if Britain applies sanctions. Other


European countries might not do the same and might not lose the trade and the jobs that we could lose. I hope that Conservative Members recognise the significance of the amendment. If sanctions are to be applied, it is important to ensure that they are applied equally by the other members of the EEC.
We know of the evasions and the sanctions-busting that took place in Rhodesia. The anxieties of our constituents should be fully understood. For those reasons, I think that amendment No. 36 is reasonable. I see no reason why we should not be kept informed about the progress made by other European countries. We must ensure that if we take action—to which I am opposed—that could be harmful to Britain, the same sanctions are applied by other countries. This is a reasonable amendment, and I see no reason why the Government should not accept it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and the observations made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Win-nick), I remain unimpressed by the amendments. I oppose them on the ground that if they were accepted they would frustrate the main purpose of the Bill.
Most hon. Members who supported the Bill last night were conscious of the difficulties associated with the imposition of sanctions. I am the first to accept that the imposition of sanctions is likely to weaken the position of the moderates in Iran and thus delay the early release of the hostages. At the same time, we must put other considerations into the balance. As a number of hon. Members said last night, the Western allies must try to put forward a united front. I am quite convinced that it is in the interests of Europe to try to maintain the best possible relations with the Government and the people of the United States of America.
Judged against those criteria and purposes, the amendments are thoroughly objectionable. They link the fulfilment of our positive objectives with the actions of others over whom we can have no possible control. Nothing that we do in this place will be effective if amendment

No. 35 is carried, unless the matter is discussed, as a precondition, in the Security Council. I take the view that that is complete nonsense for a variety of reasons, the most notable of which is that we can do nothing to ensure an early debate of this matter in the Security Council.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil made a number of points in that context. He suggested that the United Nations had a constructive role to play in this area. I wish that he were right, but I think that he is probably wrong. We can judge that only by past experience. For example, we know that on 4 December last year a resolution was passed that has in no way been complied with. We know that in March this year the Secretary-General went to Iran, attempted to negotiate a release of the hostages, and failed entirely. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Security Council can do better in the future than it has done in the past.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil made a further point with which I entirely disagree. He suggested that the Soviet Union has an interest in resolving the position of the hostages as speedily as possible. I think that he is wrong, for the reason that the Soviet Union inevitably profits from a state of discord in Iran, because if the discord goes on long enough a regime may emerge that is more favourable to Soviet interests than the present regime. I think that the presence of the hostages in Tehran and elsewhere in Persia makes that discord likely to continue. Therefore, the presence of the hostages themselves fosters the policies and the ambitions of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, and I have listened to his legal arguments with great care. Surely one of the things about Russian policy is that above everything else it does not want disorder on its borders. The hon. Member may think that the Russians were very wrong to go into Afghanistan. Some of us may think that the reason why Russia was sucked into Afghanistan was precisely that kind of disorder. When there is a minority of 40 million Muslims in the Soviet Union, with the prospect that by 1985 one-quarter of the Soviet Army will be Muslim, possibly a rather different scenario


is that the Russians do not want that kind of militant irredentist Islam on its borders. But, as I said, I am following the hon. Member's speech with great interest.

Mr. Hogg: I accept the hon. Gentleman's interesting point, but it really fortifies the conclusion to which I was pointing. It is perfectly true that the Soviet Union does not want discord on its frontiers. What it wants is a favourable regime. I am quite certain that the Soviet Union hopes that a favourable regime will emerge from the present state of chaos in Iran.
The other point with which I should like to deal briefly arises from amendment No. 36. It is obviously desirable that we should discuss the imposition of sanctions with our EEC colleagues, but surely it must be wrong to link the implementation of our action to the policies of the slowest of our allies. Indeed, if one looks at the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and asks what would happen if all other EEC countries adopted a similar approach, one finds the rather extraordinary position that no action would be taken at all, because no one would choose to be first.
The truth is that the United Kingdom will look remarkably foolish if its Government, having entered into certain commitments, and its Parliament, having passed certain policies, are seen to stand by and delay the implementation of those commitments and policies and make them dependent upon the wishes and policies of others whose perception of world events may be very different from our own. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment. The House of Commons should not be afraid to be first, if that is necessary.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall restrict my remarks to amendment No. 36. It is as well that the Committee should envisage the terms that were used in commending the Bill yesterday, which have already been quoted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). The Minister said:
It is not enough to concert in advance on what measures should be taken. We have to concert throughout on how they are to be applied.

The object of the amendment, whatever may be the detailed effect of its drafting, and the notion behind it are clearly to write that undertaking and objective upon the face of the Bill. It cannot be argued, as the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has argued, that we should go ahead of the other States and be prepared to take action that will not be followed or imitated by the other States of the EEC. That is not the Government's policy. That is not the ground on which the Government are seeking these powers. They are seeking the powers upon the undertaking and understanding that they will be exercised at each stage precisely pari passu with corresponding steps taken by all the other member States of the EEC.
That may be right or it may be wrong. It may be more gallant, it may be more dashing, not to behave in that fashion, but that is undoubtedly the Government's policy. It was reaffirmed by words quoted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, namely, that
We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916–17.]
In that context he was talking about or including the other member States of the EEC. The amendment is not in any way departing from the intentions of the Government or from the basis on which the Government have asked the House of Commons to enact the Bill. That basis is that whatever is to be the implementation, at each stage it will be simultaneous with and identical with steps being taken by the other member States.
Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that that is so by requiring that the making of the implementing orders shall be dependent upon those circumstances and conditions being fulfilled in the other member States.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that what I said corresponds with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my remarks or with the nature of the amendment. The amendment is neutral. It states that the House of Commons should know what other States are doing.

Mr. Powell: I should not be so bold as to enter into debate with the hon. Gentleman, the proposer, on what the amendment means. He should be, prima facie, the authority upon the subject. The


Committee can read the amendment and judge for itself. It states:
No Order in Council under this section shall be made".
That is mandatory. That means that unless the condition that follows is fulfilled, an order implementing sanctions cannot be made. What is the condition? It is that the
Secretary of State has previously certified…that each of the states…has adopted legislation to the like effect or has made provision to the like effect.
I am not quite sure of the sense in which the hon. Gentleman is using the word "neutral". Neutral or otherwise, the condition of these steps being taken "to the like effect" in all the other States is being imposed upon the making of the sanctions orders. In defence of the hon. Member's amendment, I should add that that would be entirely logical if we were trying to introduce provisions to implement the Government's policy, stated yesterday by the Minister.
The only possible objection to the amendment's object is that it is not necessary or desirable for the undertaking—valid and binding as it is—to be made part of the Bill. I would be prepared to accept that objection if it were not for another part of the Bill. I refer to a subsequent subsection that enables a sanctions order to be effective for 28 days before the House is given an opportunity to pass judgment on it.
11.15 pm
Perhaps the Government intend to accept the amendments. They would alter the force of subsection (6). They may say that they have thought better of the provision and that they will lay a draft order. They may say that the draft order will become effective when it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The case for this amendment would then be considerably weakened. Since these two matters are closely interwoven, there is no reason why the Minister should not indicate that it is the Government's intention to modify their views on subsection (6).
Unless the reverse is stated, I shall proceed on the assumption that the Government will stand by the clause. In that case, an order may be made on the Government's understanding that similar

orders and steps will be taken by all other member States. That order could be made, and it would come into effect immediately, before any parliamentary proceedings.
It is possible that the Government are under an innocent misapprehension. It has been known for misunderstandings to arise about the intentions of member States of the EEC. It may turn out, for example, that Luxembourg—horror of horrors—has taken no powers corresponding to those in the order. In those circumstances, the Government's policy would have been violated. The terms on which the Government had asked for the powers would have been innocently and unintentionally broken.
Let me follow this supposition through. Let me have my scenario, Mr. Crawshaw, for another moment or two. Let us suppose that on the twenty-seventh day we succeed in persuading the business managers to provide time for debate on the order. What will the Government say? What would any human Government say in those circumstances? Will they say that a debate is unnecessary, because they understand that Luxembourg will not take these measures? Will they say that they will therefore withdraw the order? Not a bit of it. Measures affecting the citizens of this country, interrupting trade and interfering with employment, will have been in force for 27 days, or a month. Will the Government then withdraw the order, on the ground that the Nine are not, after all, moving step by step?
The Government should protect themselves against being placed in so painful a moral dilemma. They would have an order that was contrary to their own understanding, intention and policy. However, when they discovered their mistake, they would be hard put to it to revoke it.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Powell: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will allow me a few more moments before his inevitable interruption takes place. Perhaps "inevitable" is too strong a word, but the force of precedent is growing so great that it verges, at any rate, upon inevitability and upon the force and compulsion of an actual law of nature. Perhaps the hon. Member will grant me a few more moments.
Rather than the Government putting themselves in that predicament, how much preferable it would be to do the natural thing in order to implement their policy, namely, to make the effectiveness of the orders conditional upon adequate and public assurance, in documentary form, that all the other States will do the same thing at the same time.
There is no difficulty in producing such a document. There is no difficulty in such a certification. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) appeared to find this mysterious. I can well envisage quite a simple Command Paper, laid before Parliament, which would set out, as many White Papers have done before, the known intention of all the member States that on such-and-such a date they would implement such-and-such measures.
There would be no difficulty about that. If there were any dubiety, if there had been a misunderstanding about the Grand Duchy's intentions, in the drawing up of that certificate and certainly, at latest, on the publication of that certificate, this error would become manifest. In a flurry of diplomatic activity, it would have to be corrected and the statement would be withdrawn and, quite properly and in accordance with the Government's policy, it would be impossible then to proceed contrary to their policy with the implementation of those sanctions.
I am far from suggesting that the amendment as it stands on the Amendment Paper, elucidated, as I trust it has been, by the exchanges between the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and myself, fully and precisely, and with ideal mechanism, achieves that purpose, but when we vote on an amendment at this stage of a Bill we are not voting upon the verbal tenor of the amendment; we are voting upon the purpose. The purpose of this amendment is to achieve the purpose of the Government and to ensure that there can be no embarrassing misunderstanding at any stage and that there cannot be any question of the Government being accused—falsely, of course, but sincerely—of having reneged upon their undertaking.
I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister of State will not take refuge behind an argument that the mechanism could be improved. By all means let him improve the mechanism, but let him, at any rate, accept that what

he has stated himself as the basis upon which the Bill is brought forward is achieved by the purpose that lies behind the amendment. He would not be fair to himself or to the Government if he did less.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I am in favour of the amendments because they provide for steps to be taken, through the United Nations, to secure the release of the hostages before this country embarks upon what I would regard as a thoroughly unwise course of action.
There is no question but that the taking of the hostages is totally deplorable. I believe that every right hon. and hon. Member considers that our objective should be to secure the release of the hostages in any way that we can as soon as possible. But we need to consider very carefully whether the implementation of sanctions forthwith will secure this objective.
I think that it is conceded that the implementation of sanctions will be limited to a handful of countries. Therefore, there is little hope that they will impose an economic stranglehold on the Iranian economy. As far as I am aware, no hon. Member has argued that the Iranian economy will collapse as a result of any action that is taken by way of sanctions.
Many speakers have conceded that what we are doing in resorting to sanctions is making a gesture. We have to consider the effect of a gesture of this character. Will it be seen by many countries as a condemnation of the action taken by the Iranians? On the contrary, it will be viewed as condemnation by countries which, for a considerable time, have been regarded as dyed-in-the-wool opponents of the present Iranian regime. It will be seen as condemnation by countries that waged an international campaign against the Government of Dr. Mossadeq, supported a CIA plot to overthrow him and back the Shah—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are discussing specific amendments. I am sure that the hon. Member will come to them. I hope that he will cut out the past few years and get to the present time.

Mr. Newens: What I am endeavouring to say—I believe that it is true, because I have taken an interest in Iranian events


for a number of years—is that support of sanctions will be seen in the way that I have described: as support by countries and people who throughout the years have been—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We had this debate yesterday. We are now discussing whether we should go to the United Nations before we take action.

Mr. Newens: I believe that we are also discussing whether or not we should implement sanctions before going to the United Nations. I am trying to point out what I believe will be the effect of implementing sanctions before we go to the United Nations. It will produce a small group of countries that are in condemnation of the Iranian regime—countries that are recognised by many people, rightly or wrongly, as having been opponents of all attempts to liberalise that regime. I believe that in these circumstances—

Mr. Russell Johnston: It may be worth making the point that it was in France—one of the countries about which we are talking—that the Ayatollah obtained refuge.

Mr. Newens: It is true that France gave the Ayatollah refuge, but the majority of countries concerned were regarded in a very different light. There is another amendment that deals with the attitude of other EEC members, including France. One of the objectives of the amendments is to be absolutely sure that we do not embark on a course of action that for some reason not apparent at the moment other countries do not follow.
I believe that more effect could be achieved in bringing about the release of the hostages if the demand made for their release and any action taken in support of it were seen not to be limited to countries that may be depicted as unrepentant supporters of the Shah. Therefore, I believe that it is tremendously important that we should try to discuss the matter further in the United Nations in order to give other countries the opportunity to express their views about the holding of the hostages.
11.30 pm
The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) conceded that the imposition of

sanctions would weaken the position of those in Iran who want the hostages to be released and, therefore, strengthen the hand of the more intransigent opponents of their release.
If we are primarily concerned with securing the release of the hostages, I cannot see how the action proposed, if the Bill goes ahead unamended, remains the will of the Committee. We must all hope that the regime in Iran will become more concerned about human rights and will realise, in due course, that it is utterly indefensible to continue to detain these American citizens. Our actions should be calculated to bring about this end and encourage it. For that reason, I collected recently the signatures of 50 hon. Members, who were opponents of the Shah's regime over many years, on a petition asking Mr. Bani-Sadr to call for human rights for all Iranians to be recognised and for the hostages to be released.
We would be utterly mistaken to embark on sanctions before we explored every conceivable avenue by which we might make it possible for the more progressive and moderate elements in Iran to come to the forefront. If we go ahead with sanctions, we shall be shutting the door on that possibility. To some extent the Government have recognised this, as did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Therefore, I see no reason why amendment No. 35 should not be made. It would have the advantage of making our position clear to the rest of the EEC countries.
I believe that it is very important that we should not, in a blind dash to show our loyalty to the United States, encourage that country in any further mistaken courses of action. Therefore, I hope that when we vote on this amendment the Committee will see the wisdom of accepting it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to be fairly brief, as most of the points have been covered effectively. I wish to place on record the fact that I strongly support the approach of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) in both amendments that are before the Committee.
I agree that the deadline of 17 May should not be regarded as inviolable. We should look at amendment No. 35 in the context of the speech made yesterday by


the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). Clearly, he did not envisage any open-ended succession of diplomatic activity without anything else, but he indicated that in all the circumstances it represented a reasonable approach to refer the matter to the Security Council.
I do not think that it should be beyond the wit of the United Kingdom to do this in concert with others. That is quite possible. Equally, having passed the legislation, a reasonable breathing space should be allowed in which we should tell the Iranian authorities that we intend to proceed with economic pressures. We have already passed through our Parliaments the appropriate legislation, so we should ask the Iranians to think about the matter once more. That surely, is a reasonable approach.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil that a further attempt should be made to recreate the international basis of abhorrence that at the beginning was a characteristic of the instinctive reaction of the world community but which, unfortunately, seems to have slid somewhat.
What we are engaged upon is not in any way an attack on Iran or on Islam. It is an attack on a form of behaviour that, if permitted to continue, could have the gravest repercussions on all international diplomatic exchanges.

Mr. Dalyell: If there is an attack in this form, is it likely to change that behaviour for the better?

Mr. Johnston: That question would take almost as long to answer as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) took to make his preliminary remarks earlier today. It is a complicated, philosophical question to ask where the division comes between diplomacy and a little pressure. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question directly. Nevertheless, I think that the time has come to move in the direction of stronger pressure on Iran. That is why I support this legislation.
I regard as essentially reasonable the proposals in amendment No. 36, related to amendment No. 39 and the other members of the Community. All the arguments have been set out with great clarity and with a certain amount of entertainment

by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It seems unnecessary for me to add to anything that he said.

Mr. McNamara: I wish to support amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which in many ways go to the nub of the problem and are best able to get the Government out of their present fix. These provisions will go a long way to resurrect the position of the West in the world community.
If we examine the history of the past six months, whether we look at Afghanistan or Iran, we find that we have been able, despite Russian vetoes, to carry with us the majority of the world, including the Third world, in our arguments about the invasion of Afghanistan and the treatment of the hostages in Tehran. That has been an enormous advantage for everybody in the world. In view of the isolation in which the West has been placed in the past, in terms of the Third world, it gained for us for the first time tremendous advantages, in that things were going our way.
Since Christmas there has been a polarisation over Afghanistan. There has been a weakening of the resolve of the Third world, partly tied up with events associated with Tehran and, in regard to the Tehran hostages, related to the actions of the United States Government—a Government who to some extent have been concerned with internal politics and pressures, which we all understand, but whose judgment has been affected.
As a result of that judgment being affected, we have seen the reappearance of the polarisation that resulted in the speech that we heard yesterday by the Minister of State. In that he spoke of the Alliance being at risk and of the need to come to the aid of the United States.
I believe that the best weapon that we can use to give help to the United States is not in the form of a concerted, Western-oriented reaction but, as the friends of the United States, in being seen to work in the whole community of nations through the United Nations. That is the best way. My hon. Friends have been right to urge that we take further steps. I am a little concerned that we should tackle things in this way, because, when the next Islamic conference is held, the United States will be arraigned by


the Islamic countries for its abortive attempt to rescue the Tehran hostages in a way that can be paralleled only by the way in which Russia was arraigned for its action over Afghanistan.
We know that there is no positive parallel between those events. We know that the intentions of the Americans were honourable. We also know that, because of the way in which the Americans set about matters, using Arab territory and invading—as many see it—the territorial integrity of an Islamic State, they offended, absolutely and directly, the feelings of the Islamic countries. It is essential that the position should be restored to where it was when the resolutions were first going through the United Nations. We must ensure that America is not arraigned by the Islamic countries and that we, in turn, as a result of this legislation, are not arraigned. We must seek to get the whole of the community of nations working on our behalf.

Mr. Dalyell: As the Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees of the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House, my hon. Friend has first-hand knowledge of the reactions of the Arab States. Can he confirm a matter on which there has been some dispute, factually, earlier in the debate and in relation to this amendment? Is it or is it not true that the Arab States he has visited are against a policy of sanctions, albeit that they do not like the taking of hostages?

Mr. McNamara: The answer to that, briefly, is "Yes." If I were to expand on that further, I am sure that I would be called to order.
We must go forward in the way that my hon. Friends have said, to try to prevent that degree of isolationism affecting both America and the West, ruining our relationships with many of the Islamic countries. If we look at the problems of the Gulf and the territories associated with Iran, we see that none will accept any of the principles contained in the legislation. If we can take them with us, through the United Nations, if we can maintain a positive approach in that way, the problems with which we shall be faced in terms of the arms race and of the vulnerability of the West will, to a degree, be diminished.
11.45 pm
In looking at the proposals and principles within the Bill, we have to be careful to avoid a worsening of our relations not only with Iran but with the Gulf States. The answer is to adopt the approach of my hon. Friend and to work through the United Nations.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) covered perfectly the points contained in amendment No. 36. We have not yet heard a statement from the Government about legislation being introduced elsewhere. There are stories that two countries—Italy and France—will have difficulty introducing the necessary legislation. Does this mean that such proposals are contrary to the spirit of their legislation? Is it difficult in political terms? Do they choose to make it difficult in order, perhaps, to reap some financial benefit if the legislation is passed in Britain?
The Government should explain what our Community partners are doing. Will the legislation be in operation on 17 May? Is the Foreign Secretary likely to be the only Minister arriving at the conference girded with these powers? Has the necessary legislation been introduced into the different Assemblies in Europe? If that is the case, although I dislike the policy, there will at least be a certain consistency in the Government's action.

Mr. Dalyell: There should be a statement by the Government on French contract law. It is the understanding of some hon. Members that, unless French contract law is altered, the sanctions that are requested cannot be imposed. The Government must investigate the matter. One has only to recall what happened in the 1960s over Franco-Arab and Franco-Israeli relations. Equally, any idea that the Italians will impose this type of law is very remote. As a member of the European Parliament, I had the experience of going to Rome and holding long interviews, as a member of the Budget Committee, with the Italian auditors. These are highly complex matters. The Foreign Office should make a statement on the question whether our European partners can implement sanctions.

Mr. McNamara: I was hoping for a moment that my hon. Friend would say that he was going to Rome for other


reasons, not so much to be canonised as to be made Grand Inquisitor. He underlines the points that I made. They must be answered by the Government. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will persevere with both amendments and that hon. Members wil be able to vote on them.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Douglas Hurd.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Dalyell: No.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have called the Minister. Mr. Douglas Hurd.

Mr. Hurd: In moving his amendment, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was right to recall that in this legislation we are dealing not with a quarrel simply between the United States and Iran but with a major breach of international law. From that thinking stemmed his speech and the moving of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman was right in his second point, that there was in December a consensus—what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) called a comity of nations—on this point, reflected in the Security Council resolution of 4 December. That consensus was broken in January, when the Soviet Union decided to veto the successor resolution that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that he supported.
It is not sensible to say that the Soviet Union has a vested interest in solving the problem of the hostages when, although it may have an interest in embassies being respected, that interest in diplomatic immunity and international law was subordinated to another interest. That must have been so, otherwise Russia would not have voted as it did. It is a little naive to suppose that the decision by the Soviet Union on where its balance of advantage lay has changed since January or that there is any evidence to suggest that another approach to Russia would yield a different result.
The United States did not then rush

into sanctions or rescue attempts or abandon the United Nations. The Security Council is not the only organ of the United Nations, and after the veto the Secretary-General tried to mobilise a commission of inquiry, which did not succeed. He is watching the situation carefully all the time to see whether there is scope for him to come in again.
The Secretary-General is coming to this country on an official visit next week, and we look forward to discussing with him in detail whether he sees any such scope. He is, as a Secretary-General should be, a cautious man and he would not wish to expose himself or his office to another rebuff. However, that is an example of the continuing diplomatic efforts through the United Nations, which we support. The Secretary-General has no need of a new Security Council resolution in order to act. He has article 99 of the Charter, which provides him with the scope for such peacemaking.
At the moment, we do not feel that there is evidence to suppose that a fresh approach to the Security Council, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil suggested, would be fruitful. An unfruitful approach, which ran into a veto again—and there is no evidence to suggest that a veto would not be forthcoming—would set matters back. We do not rule it out for the future, and if there were moves at the Security Council at a time when the Government were considering putting an order before the House it would be reasonable for hon. Members to say "Hold it. While the Security Council is meeting, we should not proceed." However, in present circumstances we do not feel that it would be sensible to advise the Committee to accept the amendment.
There has been no headlong rush into sanctions. Our diplomacy and that of others has been given the fullest possible chance. I have mentioned the efforts of the Secretary-General, and moves by other intermediaries have been tried.
I differ from the basic analysis of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and some of those who support him. I believe that the decision of 22 April and, if the Bill is passed, the existence of the powers that we are seeking will be useful to us and to the other countries that are taking such powers in pursuing the diplomatic path. That point was


touched on by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) in his interesting and convincing speech. So, there is not the harsh conflict between the two ideas that the hon. Member for West Lothian sketched out repeatedly this afternoon and evening.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that the House was entitled to an account of the approach that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will take at the meeting in Naples. That falls within the scope of these amendments, so I shall try to answer his question as best I can. I am sure that the Ministers' meeting on Saturday will start—as Ministers' meetings tend to do—from the decisions of their last meeting. Those decisions are not sacred, but, nevertheless, they are a starting point. The starting point, therefore, is their decision—sketched at greater length yesterday—that if by 17 May there has been no decisive progress leading to the release of the hostages they will jointly implement sanctions. I should imagine that the Ministers will review the progress that has been made towards the release of the hostages since they last met.
They will review what powers they have been able to take in accordance with the decision of 22 April. They will review what other discussions have taken place and what other events have occurred in this context. I imagine that my right hon. and noble Friend will report to them on his lengthy and profound discussions on the subject in Washington, of which I gave a brief account to the House yesterday. No doubt other Ministers will wish to report on other happenings and discussions in which they have been involved or of which they have heard. There will be a general stocktaking, and in the light of that they will try to make a decision.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of reaching decisions in that forum. On the question of Iran, the record has been fairly good but, as Labour Members know, such agreement is not to be taken for granted. They will try to reach agreement, and they will try to consider what further diplomatic moves by ourselves and by the Nine and others might be useful. The idea that after a period of inactivity we are simply rushing headlong into sanctions is inaccurate. We

have been trying to use our diplomacy in support of the release of the hostages. That effort will continue.
Having decided what diplomatic moves are most helpful and most fruitful, they will then consider whether those prospects would be helped or hindered by using part of the powers that they possess to introduce sanctions. Obviously, all the powers will not be used at once, because no hon. Member or anyone in Europe would expect the full panoply to be deployed immediately, but they will decide whether part of the powers could usefully be used straight away in support of their general analysis and prescription for the situation.
That approach seems to be in line with the way in which Her Majesty's Government and the Nine have been trying to tackle the problem since November. It is in a straight line from what has already occurred, and it is a reasonable approach. Our allies in the United States—people with strong investments in international law, if I may put it that way—are taking a reasonable approach at this time, six months after the taking of the hostages, and it is a reasonable approach for the Foreign Ministers of the Nine to take this weekend.

Mr. Peter Shore: In spite of the explanation that the Minister has given of the background to the Government's consideration with their colleagues in Italy in a few days, he has missed the main point of our concern. The Nine, as he fairly recalled, will have on their agenda the minutes of their last meeting. That meeting was held against a background of events that were different from events that followed. They set themselves a deadline which at that time seemed reasonable. Very important events have intervened between the last meeting of the Nine and the forthcoming meeting in Venice. It would be foolish to be tied to the previous timetable. That is why we say that it is right to take a further diplomatic initiative in the Security Council.

12 midnight

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the Ministers will consider all the events that have occurred since they last met and what diplomatic moves under the United Nations aegis or under other umbrellas might seem to be fruitful in the immediate future.


The difficulty about the amendment is that it ties us to a particular form of diplomacy at a particular time. That is why I think that it would probably not be sensible for the House to tie itself and the Government to this specific proposal.
We have some difficulty with amendments Nos. 36 and 39. I cannot advise the House to accept them. There is a certain oddity, inasmuch as the amendment and the schedule apply only to the countries of the EEC and not to Japan, whereas a consistent theme of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), in his probings and proddings during the past months, has been that the EEC was not adequate, and he has been wanting to act through the OECD. I entirely understand his main point—he has put it often enough—that in this context it is not enough simply to talk about the Nine. Therefore, it is a little surprising that he should confine himself to the Nine in the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) argued that if we put this proposal into our legislation others might feel entitled to follow suit in their legislation. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in his elaborate scenario, did not dispose of that point. If everyone insists on starting last, it is a fair bet that the effort will never be made. Therefore, in practice, this formulation would not aid what we are trying to do and could land us in considerable practical difficulty and confusion.
Nevertheless, this is a point of substance, with which we agree in principle. We want to make sure that we act alongside our main trading partners. So far, so good. The common position so far achieved is the result of a genuine feeling among many Governments in Europe and Japan that there has been a serious breach of international law and a real consciousness, which has been expounded to me by many of our partners, of the great height of genuine feeling on this subject in the United States. That is an element that has been lacking in the contributions made by Opposition Members. They do not seem to have this perception of the storm of emotion that is continuing across the Atlantic. It has been fairly easy, up to now, to reach common positions. I quite agree

that "up to now" is not very far, and that this must be maintained if the matter is to succeed.
Officials and Ministers of the Nine are now wrestling with the problem with which we are wrestling in the House. That is the problem of how far existing powers are sufficient and how far new powers have to be taken. There was a meeting of officials on this subject in Brussels today, but I do not intend, because the picture is incomplete, to give an account of the information which we have received country by country.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Does my hon. Friend realise that the day of action has just started, and does he not find it amazing that there are many members of the Socialist Party still present in the Chamber? Should they not now walk out?

Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that so many right hon. and hon. Members are here discharging their duty. It seems to me an admirable thing, in which we should all take pleasure. If my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) will allow me to continue, I was saying that I would not lay before the House a picture that might mistakenly be understood to be complete.
Before any orders were laid on a particular point under this Act, if it becomes an Act, we would need to show that in that particular respect of that particular proposal in that particular order our trading competitiors were equipped and proceeding to do the same.
The hon. Member for West Lothian quite fairly raised the question of Japan and we were earlier somewhat at cross purposes. I did not have, nor did he, momentarily, the press cutting on which he relied and which I have now seen. It does not, however, chime with our information and, though I do not say that I flatly contradict it, it does not tie in with the evidence that we have. That evidence is that Japan is associating itself closely with the EEC decision and has reaffirmed its intention to act in concert with us. That is part of the policy that is still being pursued.
I repeat that it is not enough to have simple common declarations; we need machinery that is effective for putting this into practice. This is a lesson that we should learn from Rhodesia and a lesson


that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who, I think, is not here, quite rightly commented upon.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) apologised for not being here.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, he did. The machinery does exist within the Nine, and the Japanese Government have asked to be associated with that machinery and with these consultations. We are in particularly close touch with the Governments of Australia and Canada, who are closely affected.
The measures that the Foreign Secretary will agree in Naples, rather than in Venice, will depend to a substantial extent on our judgment of the degree to which those measures can effectively be carried through in concert with our trading competitors.
The points made by the Opposition Front Bench in moving their amendment are, in our view, valid and are much in the forefront of our minds. We do not, however, believe that the points of principle that they raise are best secured by the amendments that they tabled, and we therefore hope that they will not press them to a Division.

Mr. Rowlands: Having listened to the Minister, I must say that we had hoped for more effective assurances on the aspects raised by both sets of amendments.

We are extremely interested in the fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is coming next week and we feel that that visit reinforces our view that this issue should go back to the Security Council. We have already strongly argued that that should happen. We are also reinforced in our view by the slightly disturbing words used by the Minister about this weekend's meeting in Naples.

It seems that the starting point of the discussions in Naples will be the minutes of the last meeting. The minutes of the last meeting, it seems to me, are almost irrelevant. The 17 May deadline is irrelevant. We should examine the issue again because of the important events that have taken place since April.

We are deeply concerned that the Minister of State did not say that this weekend's meeting would discuss whether any of the powers should be exercised. We suspect that the Secretary-General will advise the Minister not to implement the powers and not to exercise any form of sanctions while political and diplomatic initiatives continue. For those reasons, we cannot ask leave to withdraw our amendment.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put. That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 23.

Division No. 294]
AYES
[12.11 am


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Alton, David
Colvin, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Aspinwall, Jack
Crouch, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Dorrell, Stephen
Hannam, John


Banks, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Denshore
Hawksley, Warren


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Heddle, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dunnett, Jack
Henderson, Barry


Berry, Hon Anthony
Durant, Tony
Hill, James


Best, Keith
Dykes, Hugh
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hooson, Tom


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Blackburn, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bright, Graham
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brinton, Tim
Forman, Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brotherton, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Latham, Michael


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, Alastair
Le Marchant, Spencer


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gorst, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Gower, Sir Raymond
Lyell, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Macfarlane, Neil


Clegg, Sir Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
MacGregor, John




Major, John
Penhaligon, David
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Percival, Sir Ian
Stevens, Martin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Renton, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Rossi, Hugh
Trippier, David


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Moate, Roger
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Waddington, David


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Myles, David
Silvester, Fred
Watson, John


Needham, Richard
Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Nelson, Anthony
Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Normanton, Tom
Speller, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Sproat, lain
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Parkinson, Cecil
Stainton, Keith



Parris, Matthew
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanley, John
Mr. Tony Newton and


Patten, John (Oxford)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. John Wakeham.


NOES


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)



Dixon, Donald
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dubs, Alfred
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 161.

Division No. 295]
AYES
[12.21 am


Alton, David
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Beith, A. J.
Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sheerman, Barry


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Newens, Stanley



Dunnett, Jack
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Terry Davis.


Haynes, Frank




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Ancram, Michael
Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Buck, Antony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Elliott, Sir William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Best, Keith
Clarke, Kenneth ( Rushcliffe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clegg, Sir Walter
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Dover, Denshore
Gow, Ian




Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Speed, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector
Sproat, lain


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stainton, Keith


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hawksley, Warren
Myles, David
Stanley, John


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin


Hill, James
Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hooson, Tom
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Tebbit, Norman


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald


Kershaw, Anthony
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Patten, John (Oxford)
Trippier, David


Knight, Mrs Jill
Percival, Sir Ian
Viggers, Peter


Latham, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Watson, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


MacGregor, John
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitney, Raymond


Major, John
Rossi, Hugh
Wickenden, Keith


Marland, Paul
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wolfson, Mark


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shersby, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred
Mr. Tony Newton and


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Sims, Roger
Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
' (1B) No Order in Council under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State has previously certified to each House of Parliament that each of the states listed in the

Schedule to this Act has adopted legislation to the like effect or has made provision to the like effect as that made in the Order in Council.'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 32, Noes 161.

Division No. 296]
AYES
[12.33 am


Alton, David
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Beith, A. J.
Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sheerman, Barry


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Newens, Stanley



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Terry Davis.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Hon Peter
Dover, Denshore


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brotherton, Michael
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Banks, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Durant, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Budgen, Nick
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Elliott, Sir William


Best, Keith
Carlisle. Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blackburn, John
Clegg, Sir Walter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Colvin, Michael
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cope, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)




Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Or Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Speed, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger
Sproat, lain


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Squire, Robin


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Myles, David
Steen, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Tony
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom
Stradling Thomas, J.


Henderson, Barry
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Hill, James
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tebbit, Norman


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Thompson, Donald


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parkinson, Cecil
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waddington, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Sir Ian
Wakeham, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Price. David (Eastleigh)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Latham, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waller, Gary


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhodes James, Robert
Watson, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Lyell, Nicholas
Ridsdale, Julian
Wickenden, Keith


Macfarlane, Neil
Rossi, Hugh
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Marland, Paul
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)



Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael
Mr. John MacGregor and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 18.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 165.

Division No. 297]
AYES
[12.44 am


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Welsh, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Molyneaux, James



Dixon, Donald
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Haynes, Frank




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell


Alton, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Antony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nick
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Clegg, Sir Walter
Goodlad, Alastair


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Gorst, John


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Grieve, Percy


Blackburn, John
Dorrell, Stephen
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Denshore
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brinton, Tim
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Elliott, Sir William
Hawksley, Warren




Heddle, John
Myles, David
Sproat, lain


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Newton, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hooson, Tom
Normanton, Tom
Stanley, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steen, Anthony


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Stevens, Martin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Patten, John (Oxford)
Tebbit, Norman


Latham, Michael
Penhaligon, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Percival, Sir Ian
Thompson, Donald


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Renton, Tim
Waddington, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, John


Major, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marland, Paul
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridsdale, Julian
Waller, Gary


Mather, Carol
Rossi, Hugh
Ward, John


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Watson, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Whitney, Raymond


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wickenden, Keith


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Silvester, Fred
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith



Monro, Hector
Speller, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Mr. John MacGregor and


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Murphy, Christopher

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
' and
(c) shall not apply to any contract, if failure to secure that contract would result in people being made redundant or put on

short time; unless the government shall compensate those people for any loss of income.'.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 165.

Division No. 298]
AYES
[12.54 am


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Stoddart, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James



Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Eastham, Ken
Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Alton, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Goodlad, Alastair


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Clegg, Sir Walter
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Gower, Sir Raymond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael
Grieve, Percy


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen
Gummer, John Selwyn


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hannam, John


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony
Hawksley, Warren


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Heddle, John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Henderson, Barry


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliott, Sir William
Hill, James


Bright, Graham
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hooson, Tom


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Forman, Nigel
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael




Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Stanley, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Knight, Mrs Jill
Parkinson, Cecil
Steen, Anthony


Latham, Michael
Parris, Matthew
Elevens, Martin


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Patten, John (Oxford)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Penhaligon, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Percival, Sir Ian
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Lyell, Nicholas
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


MacGregor, John
Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, John
Rees-Davies, W, R.
Thompson, Donald


Marland, Paul
Renton, Tim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rhodes James, Robert
Trippier, David


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Ridsdale, Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Hugh
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Watson, John


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Moate, Roger
Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Monro, Hector
Silvester, Fred
Wickenden, Keith


Montgomery, Fergus
Sims, Roger
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Murphy, Christopher
Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Myles, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)



Nelson, Anthony
Sproat, lain
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Newton, Tony
Squire, Robin
Mr. David Waddington and


Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Onslow, Cranley

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 14.

Mr. Dalyell: With votes of 165 to 17, these proceedings are like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I did rather ask for that. However, those who could easily go to bed ought to recognise that this is the only occasion—they cannot tell me that we can do it on one-and-a-half-hour orders—when we can examine matters of considerable seriousness to this country. Amendment No. 14, dealing with penalties, is such a matter.
I do not want to start trying to score party points, but I was hoping for at least the presence of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), because on Monday he wrote in The Guardian an article headed:
Iran vote: Why I'm sitting tight".
If the hon. Gentleman had sat tight and not voted, I would not complain, but having written such an article he should have done us the courtesy of being present for the debate, because his words are opposite to the amendment:
Even the White House should be able to see it for what it is: simply a cosmetic exercise. And there is much to object to when it comes to penalties for sanctions breaking.

May I be forgiven for saying that I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been here to object? We should have heard his reasons. If an hon. Member writes such articles in the press, there is a solemn obligation on him to explain his arguments to colleagues on both sides of the House. Does the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) wish to intervene?

Mr. David Price: I was just agreeing with the hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell: That is music to my ears. The hon. Member for Aldershot went on:
when it comes to penalties for sanction breaking, the ' crime ' that the Commons only last week forgave all those who had sold goods to Rhodesia; for similar misdeeds in the future, the penalties are vague, unspecified, and quite unsatisfactory.
I am no soothsayer, but I predict that, if the Bill becomes an Act, sooner rather than later a junior Minister from the Foreign Office or the Department of Trade will ask the House to approve an Iran sanctions amnesty order. It needs no great foresight on my part to predict that. When we have the example behind us, we do not need the glass.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That depends on what penalties the Government decide to impose on anyone who breaks the regulations. As yet, we have no idea what penalties will be provided. Unless


the Government make that clear there is no guarantee that anyone will need an amnesty, anyway.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the mysteries that are not revealed to us. I am not a lawyer, but many of my hon. Friends and I know sufficient to appreciate that it is not satisfactory for the House to pass legislation without any clear idea how it is to be implemented. If we are to make laws, we had better have a clear idea how we are to enforce them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As my hon. Friend knows, I submitted an amendment which was not called but would have been an Iran sanctions amnesty order. Perhaps he would like to express a view on the question whether he feels that such an amendment—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already talked the amendment out of court. It would be completely out of order to discuss it.

Mr. Dalyell: I know the idea behind my hon. Friend's proposal. I asked lawyers about it, and it seems to be fairly sensible at one level, although not perfectly drafted in parliamentary terms. I understand why the amendment was not selected.
If we bring forward legislation without being clear about the penalties, we shall land ourselves in all sorts of trouble. The Minister may say that the question of penalties must be discussed on Saturday at the Foreign Ministers' meeting, but that raises the question of what penalties will be imposed in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), who was a parliamentary colleague when we were both Members of the European Assembly—the indirectly elected Assembly—and who is now a Member of the European Parliament, knows very well that there are considerable legal problems in France and Italy that make it difficult for those countries to impose sanctions on current contracts, and almost certainly on new contracts. It is extremely difficult to differentiate between a current contract and a new contract, because there are problems of renewal. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central

(Mr. McNamara) raised that point yesterday, but we have had no coherent answer.
We must be serious about this matter—even at this time of night. I face a problem in putting forward this amendment. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Minister for Trade have both shown great equanimity and good manners throughout the debate. The Minister for Trade began his reply to my earlier intervention by saying that I could not have it both ways. He said first—I borrow the expression "Isaiah A" from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—that there are so many loopholes in this sieve-like legislation that it cannot work anyway.
The second proposition that he attributed to me was that this would be damaging to British industry. I expressed myself in terms of Armageddon and said that that was completely contradictory and that it was a juxtapositioning of Isaiah B and Isaiah A. However, on reflection, it seems to me that there is no contradiction. It is like getting the worst of all possible worlds. It cannot work, but because we have espoused this cause we will get the worst of all possible worlds, not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Chairman, because he has been in Iran recently and I suspect that he will deploy the argument about the way in which penalties will affect the situation in Iran. We are committed to getting the worst of all possible worlds. We should not imagine for a moment that there will not be a tit-for-tat situation. The notion that, somehow or other, Iranians will sit idly by, do nothing and accept our policy on current contracts while we are not putting forward new contracts is against the laws of human nature. People do not act in that way. Most hon. Members, were they stubborn aesthetic Iranians, would react in the most difficult way—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing something that we have already discussed earlier—whether there should be sanctions. That has already been decided. What we are now discussing is whether a


breach of sanctions should be penalised. That is the full extent of what we are discussing, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to that issue.

Mr. Dalyell: No penalties are specified in the Bill. In the middle 1960s, when we embarked on a course—wise or unwise—of sanctions for Rhodesia, it was clearly laid down what the penalties would be. Whether or not one accepts the Bingham committee's report, there was comparatively little dubiety about it. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and others, the consequences for persons convicted of breaking sanctions were clearly spelt out.
The Secretary of State for the Environonment, whose presence we greatly welcome, shakes his head. I remember him, as a brilliant young Back Bencher, chiding my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton on the unworkability of sanctions in Rhodesia. If he likes to contribute to the debate he will be extremely welcome and I will give way to him.

Mr. Parkinson: It might help the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—I know that he does not like wasting the time of the House—if I say to him that if the words in the amendment were added to the Bill they would not make one jot or tittle of difference to it. The power that he seeks to put in the Bill is already contained in it. The amendment is totally unecessary and would not add anything to the Bill that is not already in it.

Mr. Dalyell: At what point in the Bill is the power contained?

Mr. Parkinson: May I intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech and answer him specifically?
It is unnecessary for the Bill to confer specific power to create criminal offences and lay down penalities for such offences. The Bill already contains such power. Provided that offences relate to the contracts described in subsections (1) and (2), and that the creation of a criminal offence in that connection is
necessary or expedient in consequence of breaches of international law by Iran ",
provision in the form of criminal offences may be made. The only restriction is on the ground of excessive jurisdiction, and

that is described in detail in subsection (4). The Bill provides that the Government may take such action as is necessary or expedient arising from breaches of the provisions of the Bill. That is repeated in subsection (3). Subsection (4) makes the point clear by saying:
but no provision so made shall render a person guilty of an offence in respect of anything done or omitted by him".
In other words, the fact that that subsection is in the Bill is proof that an offence can be contained in the earlier section, otherwise there would be no point in it. By the way, I am informed that that is exactly how provision was made in the Rhodesia legislation for these powers.

Mr. Dalyell: That is an astonishing and important statement. It is the kind of statement that should not be made at 1.15 in the morning. It is unsatisfactory that such a statement should be made at such a time. The situation as established by the Minister has certainly not been understood by the press. The press has a different impression. What departmental briefing was there?

Mr. Parkinson: I am telling the hon. Gentleman that we do not like to litter our legislation by repeating, in the words that he would like to see inserted, powers that are already there. The powers under the Rhodesia legislation were provided in exactly the same fashion as in this legislation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my assurance that the power to do what he wishes is contained in the Bill. I give my word on that.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dalyell: I take the Minister's word in good faith because he is a parliamentary colleague of good faith, but I must ask whether we can be told the level of penalty that a firm might expect to incur should it break the sanctions.

Mr. Parkinson: We have no more idea of the penalty specified in the Bill as it is now than we would have if we inserted those words. The penalties will be specified—as they would be if the hon. Gentleman's words were in the Bill—in the orders that will be made under the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the words in the amendment are not really important? It is part of the task of the House, when in Committee, to probe what is contained in legislation. What is important is to find out how the Government intend to use the powers, whether they are specified in the Bill or set out in an amendment.
The Government have so far concentrated their attention on criticising the words of the amendment instead of telling us how they intend to carry out sanctions against those individuals who might break the regulations.

Mr. Dalyell: That is exactly the issue. How does one set about imposing sanctions, and Parliament's will, on those who are supposed to have transgressed—

Mr. James Lamond: Without wishing to delay my hon. Friend for too long, may I say that I have followed this important discussion closely and I have listened to what the Minister said? He said that powers to do what the amendment proposes are already enshrined in legislation elsewhere, and he read part of that legislation to us. But the amendment says that when the order comes forward it.
shall lay down statutory penalties.
The words are "shall lay down".
The Minister said that the powers are there and that the statutory instrument may lay down penalties. There is a difference between "may" and "shall". I may have misunderstood the Minister, but it seems to me that the amendment being proposed by my hon. Friend—to which I hope to speak shortly—is somewhat stronger in intention than the legislation quoted by the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend's point is valid. I make no complaint about the Minister's asking for legal advice. Perhaps one of the Law Officers should be here. I do not ask for the Attorney-General, because I do not believe that the most senior members of the Government should be here at 1.25 am. Perhaps we should send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland. That would improve the quality of debate. However, I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), the English Solicitor-General, can do an adequate job.
Seriously, the difficulty about penalties arises out of the question of renewal. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said on Second Reading that some contracts with Iran had an option for renewal. One can imagine the legal battle in deciding whether a contract is renewable, a past contract or a new contract. The lawyers will have a field day. A Dickensian circumlocution office would not compare with it. If such an option for renewal came up, would it be treated as a new contract or an existing contract? We are talking not of hypothetical situations but of export industries which rely upon constant renewal. We are discussing the motor, chemical and heavy machinery industries and others. The strength of British exports to the Middle East is based on continuity.
How does one impose penalties on a company that says that it is engaging in part of an old or renewed contract rather than a new contract? That will take a long time to decide in a court of law. Companies will hold out as long as possible because they will be looking for an Iranian sanctions amnesty order that will certainly come before the House. There is a built-in argument for delaying decisions in the courts.

Mr. Bennett: Which level of court will be used? There has been a long debate in Committee about which level should be used and what rights people should have. I do not know whether prosecutions will take place in the High Court or in the country courts.

Mr. Dalyell: That is one of the difficulties of meshing in the 1939 Act and the measure that we are discussing. It is far from clear which court has jurisdiction to impose penalties.

Mr. Parkinson: How does the hon. Gentleman's amendment make that question clear?

Mr. Dalyell: The Government are saying that there is an obligation on their critics to table perfectly drafted amendments. We are asking the Government to clarify the matter. When the Minister asked how the amendment would help, he appeared unclear about the courts in which any action would take place. Commercial law is very complex. If the Minister does not like that, he must send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland—

Mr. Parkinson: We have good lawyers.

Mr. Dalyell: The good lawyers could then produce a legal answer to the conundrum put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). We were told that no decision had been taken to use such powers and that no such decision would be taken unless other countries were to do the same. I wish to know how the court, the penalties and the sanctions will be slotted in to what happens among our partners. What happens with the Japanese? Will there be uniform sanctions? We are told that the Commission has no locus in the matter. I see that the Minister agrees with that. How are the penalties to be co-ordinated with Japan, the EEC and other countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and the Philippines, which will try to step into the Iranian market? I know that it is about 1.30 am, but it is a perfectly sensible question. How do we synchronise the law of Britain on sanctions with that of the Philippines and Taiwan? It is not a ridiculous question. To be effective, the sanctions must be uniform where there are competitive markets.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not my hon. Friend accept that the lesson that we learnt from the example of Rhodesia was that uniform sanctions and their implementation by our European allies was completely impossible? There is much evidence to suggest that a number of Western European countries refused to implement the sanctions. A prize example of that was the French. There were a number of reported incidents where they refused to take action. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that if individual countries accept the need for legislation yet refuse to make it work, our own nationals will be put at an unfair disadvantage?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) answers, I ask him to read the words of his amendment. In the past 10 minutes he has given every reason why the amendment should not be passed. Will he tell us whether he is moving the amendment or telling us why it should not be accepted?

Mr. Dalyell: It is a probing amendment. If the Committee were upstairs,

there would be no question about its being an acceptable probing amendment. I have an obligation to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The answer lies in the terms of the statements of the Patronat—the main French employers' organisation —which issued public statements to the effect that it doubts whether sanctions are legal. It is a sheer illusion to imagine that the French Government will not pursue their own commercial interests. They have had more relations with Iran, and over a longer period, than any other commercial interest of any other European Parliament.
I return to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South. He gave the example of Luxembourg. Of course, it was not quite as hypothetical as he made out. It is possibly unlikely that Luxembourg would do what the right hon. Gentleman said, because the only time when Luxembourg really vetoes is when it is proposed to take Community institutions out of Luxembourg. However, the Belgians are a different kettle of fish. Henri Simonet has had great difficulty with his coalition partners, and Mr. van Meiert has said that it is all about President Carter's re-election. They are both senior Belgian politicians.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are getting to the heart of it.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said that we are getting to the heart of it. I regret very much that amendment No. 7 was not chosen. But what I have said applies to both France and Italy. I know that Conservative Members are good natured about this, and I cannot complain. But they must not ridicule what I am saying.
It is only through self-education in the House of Commons that eventually we uplift the various paving stones and find all the beetles and little "weaselly" things underneath. As soon as one starts lifting the paving stones and asking the awkward questions, one gets further and further into its unworkability. All the difficulties crawl out from underneath the paving stones. It is the job of the House of Commons to lift those paving stones.
Therefore, the Government had better concentrate their minds on the co-ordination of penalties. When Dr. Waldheim comes to London on Saturday on his official visit—[Interruption.] We are told


that he is coming to discuss these matters. I believe that he should be asked whether the United Nations is prepared to do anything to co-ordinate penalties. It is all very well to talk about the opportunities, as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office did about Dr. Waldheim's visit, but sanctions damage that kind of opportunity.
The Minister shakes his head. One of the things on which we part company is our view of human nature. If one starts imposing sanctions on people, it is an unpleasant thing to do. It is a pinprick. It is no good talking about the window of opportunity and an opportunity to discuss things seriously. Therefore, one must be very clear about how the penalties are arranged so that, to use the Government's own words, we are neither in advance of nor lagging behind our competitors.
Indeed—this is part of the lack of realism in all this—even if we were to agree in the West, who thinks that the Eastern block would not connive and help in every way, because it would not be party to it? Incidentally, if it is said "But Iran depends on certain specific goods from the West", there is no penalty—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be able to mention every country in the world if his remarks were in order, but they are not in order. We are discussing penalties in regard to a breach of any of the sanctions, not whether Eastern European countries will fill in gaps, and so on. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the point that we are discussing.

Mr. Dalyell: You say, Mr. Crawshaw, that I could mention every country in the world. But part of the difficulty is that we are on circuitous routes. As I said on "The World at One", the road to Tehran lies through Moscow. It is no good saying that I am going all round the world, because in order to discuss the problem properly one must see it in total, not only geographically but also, as some of us believe, in terms of time span.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his arguments to penalties. He is advancing good reasons why no sanctions should be imposed, but we have already passed that

part of the Bill. Will he address his remarks to the question whether penalties should be imposed for breaches of sanctions?

Mr. Dalyell: Penalties that will not be applied universally are unrealistic.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has referred to statutory penalties. Would it be in order for him to enlighten the Committee by explaining the types of penalty that he is considering? If we are to debate these matters, we should be informed of the form that penalties will take. Does he think that penalties will be standard throughout the European Community?

Mr. Dalyell: That is the point. Are they to be standard penalties throughout the European Community? Are these penalties to be standard for Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines or anywhere else? In particular, are they to be standard for the United States of America? This is the difficulty in which we find ourselves when we indulge in gesture politics.
We know from earlier debates—it has not been denied—that American goods are getting into Iran through Dubai and Bahrain. There should be an equality of penalty with the Americans. Have we talked to the Americans about penalties?
Contrary to general belief, I am not anti-American. However, there is a considerable up and down in the American Government. I became cynical about events in Washington when Walt Rostow summoned me into his office in the base of the White House in 1967. When one has seen an American academic euphoric with power, enjoying himself hugely, lecturing on Vietnam—my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has had similar experiences—and lecturing most violently on how the British have lost their nerve and arguing that they should be in favour of a policy east of Suez, one knows the sort of thing that goes on in the American Government. They are a Government who speak with several voices.
Rostow has gone. He was succeeded by Kissinger. We now have Dr. Brzezinski. In Washington there is a veritable babble of competing advisers. Often the advice is far from objective. We would not be in the Chamber now if it were not for


President Carter's Washington. Dr. Brzezinski has all the hang-ups of his European past. I do not normally complain about other people's wives, but he is married to a grand neice of President Benes of Czechoslovakia, who committed suicide in the 1930s.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We have enough to discuss without going through all these family connections.

Mr. Dalyell: Even the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is interested. It is these interesting facts late at night that reveal glimpses of the truth. We would not be in this position were it not for these rather human factors.
Like many of my colleagues, I like the United States. However, I have the gravest doubts about the way in which federal Washington is governed. It is the Dr. Brzezinskis of this world who are asking us to impose penalties and to ruin British industry. For what are we being asked to do that? Many of us believe that this started—

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is an argument about why we should not impose sanctions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will discuss the subject of penalties.

Mr. Dalyell: Penalties are linked to the United States of America. Professor Stanley Hoffmann, in an article about the reactions of Europeans in The Guardian of 12 May, wrote:
they should not hesitate to state their own position, to dissent from the United States when they believe that American leaders are muddle-headed or shortsighted, and to press for long-term courses of action that avoid both appeasement and provocation. Only in this way can they succeed either in rescuing Mr. Carter from inconsistency or in redressing the balance "—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been very patient. I think that I have made clear what I expect the hon. Gentleman to discuss. He is not discussing penalties. He is going over the subject of sanctions again.

Mr. Dalyell: We are faced by an interlocked problem. I think that I have a right to ask what penalties Washington is imposing on the American people. What are the American Government doing to ensure that American industry—which wants to maintain technical links with

markets in Iran and the Middle East—is subjected to penalties?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Chrome ore is shipped to the United States of America from Rhodesia. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the American Government have taken no action about those shipments.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to destroy the good will of the Chair. However, the Atlanticists have a serious case to answer. We must consider how penalties will affect those whom the Iranians trust and those who continue to trade with their traditional customers in Iran. What is the Government's notion of the type of people that they are dealing with in Iran? Many of them do not believe that the taking of hostages was a horific act. None of my hon. Friends would excuse the taking of hostages—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This subject was debated fully yesterday. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that this has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: With respect, Mr. Crawshaw this subject has some relevance to the amendment. We are discussing the continuity of trade and the trust that has been built up by our constituents. I think of Massey-Ferguson and of British Leyland. If those firms are to be subjected to penalties, how will they be able to trade in that market? That difficulty also applies to current contracts, and to food and medical supplies, which are exempted. There will be a tit-for-tat reaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was a Member of the European Assembly. She noted that the Commission had no responsibility. I think that she will agree that the European Parliament has no responsibility. However, that does not stop it from passing resolutions. But, nevertheless, this again is a grey area.
The way that it relates to penalties is this. I borrow the phrase of the right hon. Member for Down, South. Do we go pari passu with other competitors? [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] At the same place; in the same way; accepting the same level of penalties. Has the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) a better translation?
It is a question of doing it simultaneously and indentically with other member States.
In order to make sense of this, one has to refer to the contribution yesterday of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said:
Meanwhile, we have been working on how we would translate this agreement into national terms. It was agreed that we should each take national measures. This is not a question of Community legislation.
At that point he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton):
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the report in The Times last week that the nine EEC diplomats had had a meeting and had unanimously said that economic sanctions would be counterproductive? 
To that, the Minister of State replied:
I cannot confirm that because it is not so. I hope that hon. Members will permit me to continue with my speech before asking me to give way again.
We have been working on how to translate this agreement into national measures. We have received representations from many hon. Members in different parts of the House on specific points and, also, representations from British firms. We have spent a lot of time—this may be what the hon. Gentleman refers to, although the report he has seen is wrong—working on details with our European partners and other Governments, particularly the Government of Japan. An important point has to be made. Some letters I have received chide us for not acting alone and at once to support the United States. There has been quite a volume of correspondence to this effect. In our view, it is right, in principle, to act whenever we can, in concert with our partners, and it is also, in this case, a matter of plain common sense. We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. We do not intend to take measures that have the effect of delivering trade into the hands of our competitors."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916–17.]
Having studied this, I went to the very competent section of the Library that deals with these matters. I have a letter, which I think has to be read out, in connection with penalties. It says:
You asked, as I understand it, whether the proposed UK sanctions against Iran would be in conflict with our legal obligations as a member State of the EEC. It seems to me that this cannot be realistically argued, since all nine member Governments, represented by Foreign Ministers, agreed at their meeting of 22 April to impose sanctions on the lines of the vetoed US Security Council resolution (which Britain and France voted for).

The text of the communiqué of 22 April was enclosed. I shall spare the Committee the full text, but—

Mr. James Lamond: It would be helpful in enabling us to understand the letter if my hon. Friend would tell us to whom it was addressed. I think that he omitted to mention that.

Mr. Dalyell: It is addressed to me. It is signed by Simon Young of the International Affairs Section.

Mr. Hal Miller: That has nothing to do with penalties.

Mr. Dalyell: It does. [Interruption.] It is dated 13 May—very much up to date. [Interruption.]
I do not know whether the Government Chief Whip welcomes all the searching questions which are now being put to me about the letter.
The important part of the communiqué is paragraph 5:
The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, deeply concerned that a continuation of this situation may endanger international peace and security, have decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council resolution on Iran, dated 10 January 1980, which was vetoed and in accordance with the tenets of international law.
They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17 May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples.

Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I have been listening with some good humour, but very close attention, to the hon. Gentleman, and I am still trying to relate his remarks and this very interesting letter to the question of the penalties, which is the subject of the amendment. I wonder whether you have had that difficulty.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It will not be unknown to the Committee that I have been on my feet a few times—perhaps as often as the hon. Gentleman. I keep asking the hon. Gentleman to link his remarks to the matter of the penalties.

Mr. Dalyell: All will soon be revealed. The communiqué continues:
In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions.


Here we are straight on to penalties:
Ministers consider that, pending the entering into force of the measures mentioned above, no new export or services contract with persons or organisations in Iran should be concluded as of from now.
This is the critical point:
Steps will be taken within the Community in order that the implementation of the measures decided upon should not obstruct the proper functioning of the Common Market.
This is extremely important, because my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe, who is a student of Community institutions, has had a great deal to say over the past five years—she is a so-called anti-Marketeer and pro-Marketeer—about the way that the regulations of the Common Market can override and perhaps interfere with—if I could borrow her kind of phrase in this context—the proper jurisdiction of national Governments.
What kind of synchronisation of penalties is likely to take place? If it will be neither ahead nor behind our partners, one has to know the means and mechanism whereby that desirable state of affairs will be implemented.
We come back to the question of the Belgians. The Belgians have this problem. Simonet has talked about the minimum basis of solidarity and has come—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to cover every country in Europe? If so, I shall come to the conclusion that he is seeking not to try to expedite the Bill but to hold it back. I should not like to think that was his intention. He started by complaining because there was nothing about penalties in the Bill—his amendment is asking for them—and then spent the rest of the time saying why we should not have penalties. I hope that he will say whether we should have penaltes. I hope that he will say whether he is moving the amendment. If it is a probing amendment, he has given the Minister many points to which he will get answers, if the Minister can answer. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for about 40 minutes.

Mr. Dalyell: This is our only opportunity to look in detail at absolutely valid points. I think that we should consider the question of the Belgians.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am not going to listen to the hon. Gentleman

go into every country and its legislation. If he wants to refer to the specific legislation that we are putting through, I shall listen to him, but I shall not allow him to continue in this vein.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not going through every country in Europe, but possibly one should turn to the position of France. Is it not a fact that France faces legal and constitutional problems in preventing the completion of existing contracts? In French law, does not the action of sanctions expose the Government of France to claims for compensation since any action is regarded as expropriation? Does anyone really imagine that France will resist the temptation to accept follow-on contracts, if not overtly new contracts? To do any such thing would be a departure for the French Government.
2 am
This raises the whole question of the synchronisation of penalties. Either the Government mean what they say about being neither ahead or nor behind our partners, or they do not. The French hope to win a $2·3 billion deal to build the Underground in Tehran, not to mention a $150 million contract for the delivery of four Airbuses in 1983. We are concerned with these aircraft deliveries. What kind of penalties will operate and what kind of compensation may be paid to Marcel Dassault—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it plain to me that he is anxious that we should be in step with our partners in this matter. If I allow the hon. Member to continue in this vein, it would be possible for him to consider all the contracts of every Government in Europe. That would be completely out of order. The hon. Member has made his point, and I would have thought that he would want the Minister to answer. But he is repeating himself, and if he continues like this I shall come to the conclusion that it is tedious repetition.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not talk about every contract, but there are certain major contracts that I wish to consider. Also, tedious repetition is an elusive matter. The last time I was accused of tedious repetition was on the Scotland Bill. Had I been ruled out of order on that Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham,


East (Mr. Lamond), a former Lord Provost of Aberdeen, knows very well, things might have turned out differently. Had the Government got their legislation through the first time, there would have been a Government in Edinburgh today and a Prime Minister of Scotland, and we would have been three-quarters of the way towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. Therefore, accusing Mem-Members of Parliament of tedious repetition when they are producing fact after fact to establish their case can be—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is because the hon. Member is producing one fact after another, all of which mean the same thing, that I am coming to the conclusion that he is indulging in tedious repetition. I hope that he will appreciate that the amendment is about penalties. Occasionally he gets to the point, but it is only occasionally. Will he please return to the penalties?

Mr. Dalyell: I am dealing with the synchronisation of penalties. More than 90 per cent. of contracts between the French and the Iranians are covered by export insurance and guarantees, provided by the State-controlled COPAS organisation. In most cases insurance policies give up to 90 per cent. for political risks. Who pays the penalties if the penalties are imposed? The penalties are as yet unspecified. Will there be the same level of penalty among the Western European countries, because I do not want to lose the good will of the Chair, and go on to lose that of Germany.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington raised the question of Salzgitter, the big steel firm. The managing director, Ernst Peiper, said that company sales to Iran were running at about 90 million deutschemarks per year in the year to June 1980. Salzgitter in the last few months has done very much better. The question is whether it is to be compensated by the Government of the Federal Republic, and is compensation to take place at the same level in the Federal Republic as occurs in Britain? Unless there is a similar attitude towards compensation, there can be no synchronisation and we are put at a disadvantage.
This is a fairly solid argument. It involves not only Salzigitter but the well-known firm of Krupp. Is Iran's £500

million investment in the West German firm of Krupp subject to an arrestment order, and what will be the position there? It is no good hon. Members laughing. These are practical points. Where else shall we able to discuss them? Arrestment orders are not laughing matters, and a great many jobs and a great deal of wealth are involved. The Minister of State, Department of Trade may treat arrestment orders with unbecoming levity, but I regard them as matters of extreme seriousness.
Krupp is working on the Sar Chesmeh copper project worth 130 million deutschemarks, and last year Krupp sold 200 million deutschemarks worth to Iran. The question is: Why should not Krupp do all this through Turkey and will the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany put on sanctions and penalties? Suppose that one goes through a third country. Turkey may well be that third country, because the Turks in Eastern Turkey want to co-operate with the Iranians. The Iranians have given them a good long-term deal involving 1·6 million tonnes of much-needed diesel oil at a favourable rate to the Turkish economy—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been very patient with the hon. Gentleman. In as kindly a way as I have been able, I have indicated my displeasure at the course he is adopting. I am giving him the last warning that, unless he concludes these remarks, I shall ask him to resume his seat. The amendment has not been moved. If he wishes to move it, he had better move it now.

Mr. Dalyell: There are important matters in relation to Italy, but I am a man to take a hint. The Italians have 2,000 nationals working in Iran. There are deep questions that arise on the matter of penalties for firms whose nationals are committed. I think it would be improper to go into the deep questions relating to the Japanese, who have their biggest single investment outside Japan and who have dispatched—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he did not intend to go into these matters, and then immediately did so. I have made it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that either he should conclude his remarks or I shall have to ask him to resume his


seat. He has not moved the amendment. If he wishes to do so, he must do it.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Crawshaw, I thank you for your patience. I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert
' and shall lay down statutory penalties for offences committed in contravention of those prohibitions, restrictions or obligations '.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) moved his amendment and explained at some length that he felt it to be necessary because he thought the Bill did not include powers to lay down statutory penalties for offences committed in contravention of the prohibitions, restrictions and obligations set out in the Bill. I told him at an early stage that I am advised that the power he seeks is in the Bill and that it is possible for the things he wanted to see done to be done.
The rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks centred on whether we could rely on our Community partners to be in a position to implement the sanctions resolution of 22 April. Could we be sure that we would not be putting ourselves at a disadvantage by subjecting ourselves to restrictions that others might not be subject to because they might not have the necessary statutory powers and so on? It has been made clear in the course of these debates that all member States have committed themselves to returning on 17 May with the necessary powers to implement the sanctions resolution of January which was vetoed by the Russians. We have made it clear that, unless that is the case, Her Majesty's Government will not go any further. We shall act only in concert with our allies.
What we are saying to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes, if we were to be the only people who were to have the powers and use them, we would be just as foolish as he says a country doing that would be." But we have no intention of doing that. The Foreign Ministers are meeting. They are committed to seeing whether they have been able to fulfil their pledge of 22 April and, if they have, will then decide to take identical measures.
The hon. Member then went on to the question of penalties, asking how we would know what the penalties were and

when we would know what they were. The penalties will be introduced in the orders. This is an enabling Bill and orders will flow from the 1939 Act and from this Bill when it becomes an Act. In those orders the offences, the products embargoed, and the penalties for not observing those orders will be specified.
To deal with another of the arguments which the hon. Member uses over and over again, this is not the last opportunity on which we shall be able to discuss penalties imposed by orders made under this legislation. Orders will be laid and they will need to be discussed. The House will have the opportunity to discuss them. We have gone further and said that, even though the 1939 Act does not oblige the Government to come to the House for approval of orders laid, we shall find a parallel procedure to that envisaged under the Bill so that the House will have the opportunity to express its view about orders made not only under this legislation but under the 1939 Act.
I think that the hon. Member has had a very fair run. He has aired his concerns—they are obviously deeply felt because he keeps returning to them—and I hope that for his part he will feel that I have been able to satisfy his fears on this point.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This appears to be a very early stage for the Minister to reply. Can he give us a clear indication that, if other countries and the United Kingdom decide to impose sanctions, the penalties will be uniform throughout all those countries which meet on Saturday? Can he assure us that there will not be a situation in which someone in this country faces stiffer penalties than someone in France?

Mr. Parkinson: This will be a matter for the national Governments. We shall have to justify to the House any penalties that we propose under any orders laid before the House. That is the position, and the House will make up its mind about whether the Government's proposals are sensible, making its assessment of the offence and the penalty that ought to be imposed. This should be our principal occupation.

Mr. James Lamond: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I am a little alarmed at the, early stage the Minister has chosen to


reply to the debate. The hon. Gentleman has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as having had a good run, but I remind him that there are other hon. Members here. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is not alone. There are other hon. Members, including myself, who are hoping to catch the eye of the Chair. I might remind the Minister that I have not made a speech of any kind on this Bill so far.

Mr. Parkinson: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It would be difficult for a person, even with the imagination of the hon. Gentleman, to think of some obscure corner of the amendment which has not been trampled around pretty vigorously.
It is not my duty to decide who speaks after me or whether anyone does. If the hon. Gentleman had a real concern with which he was attempting to deal in the amendment, I hope that his mind is now at rest and that he feels that we can move on to other and more important parts of the Bill.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister's concern to assume that all the arguments on the clause have been aired is understandable. This clause is, in many respects, a key clause in the Bill. We have before us a Bill on sanctions—but sanctions with no teeth. It is strange that such a proposal should come before the House. But it is not at all strange that Conservative Members are concerned that it should be glossed over by Opposition Members.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Reading.

Mr. Holland: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman is jealous of the attainment.
I wish to speak relatively briefly in opposing the amendment. It is desirable that there should not be penalties in the Bill relating to sanctions since it is desirable that the sanctions should not work. It is also desirable, I suspect, even from

the Government side of the House, that the sanctions should be seen not to work. It appears clear from references by Ministers to concern about rising opinion in the United States—I witnessed television reports last month relating to Sanctions Day 100 and so-and-so and Sanctions Day 100 plus 1—that the Government are in two minds over the Bill. It may be no accident that the penalties are not specified. There would be good reason for that approach since it is highly improbable that the policy will work. If, in fact, the Bill contained the teeth of penalties, it would be likely to provoke significant reactions within Iran.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has recently visited post-revolutionary Iran. Can he describe, from his first-hand knowledge, what are the likely reactions?

Mr. Holland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point. I appreciate that the hour is late or early, according to one's choice. It may be germane to point out that relatively few hon. Members have been to Iran since the events concerned. I would be interested to know whether any hon. Member present in the Chamber has been to Iran during this period. Although it may be difficult for Conservative Members to assume that I intend to present a serious argument, I wish to relate the case on sanctions and penalties to the situation in Iran, as I perceived it, during a visit after last year's events.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryan Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman will relate his arguments to the amendment.

Mr. Holland: Of course, Mr. Godman Irvine. In relating my remarks to the amendment, I also wish to relate them to information pertinent to the amendment. One of the bases of my argument is that the Government may be misleading the House in the sense that they are introducing a Bill that has no teeth because they do not intend the Bill to work. This is a central clause in the legislation and it is important for us to consider why an anomalous situation exists in the Bill.

Mr. Parkinson: It may help the hon. Gentleman if I point out that the Bill is the same as the Rhodesian sanctions Bill. No one ever accused that measure of lacking teeth or saw anything sinister in the way that it was drafted.

Mr. Holland: That must be one of the Minister's weaker arguments. Given the criticisms of the Conservative Party of Rhodesian sanctions, the fact that the Government have modelled the Bill on the measure that proposed sanctions against Rhodesia proves my point. They can hardly be serious about their proclaimed intention to make sanctions bite.
The fact that Rhodesian sanctions were busted with impunity by leading companies in this country tends to confirm that the Bill is a cosmetic exercise aimed essentially at placating American opinion rather than at having a direct effect on the hostages in Iran.
In considering whether sanctions will have teeth, it is important to take into account that the Iranian economy was already in significant crisis before the revolution. The sanctions that would really bite on the economy would be the withdrawal of the technology of multinational companies in Iran, the withdrawal of banking credit and other facilities for trade and the fact that components for the manufacture of goods in Iran could no longer be imported.
The staggering fact is that this is already the situation in Iran. By the middle of last year, virtually all the personnel concerned with foreign multinational capital had been withdrawn from Iran. The modern sector of the economy is not functioning efficiently. I saw one of the biggest paper pulp mills, a massive project that had ground to a halt because of the withdrawal of Canadian personnel and skilled labour, which, incredibly perhaps, was Korean. There is insufficient skilled labour in Iran to run the modern sector of the economy.
In practice, the international banking—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member observed many interesting things in Iran, but we want to hear about amendment No. 14.

Mr. Holland: My argument is germane to the amendment, because I cannot see on what basis the Government wish to introduce sanctions if they do not wish to introduce them with teeth. In trying to interpret for the House why that it is the case, it seems relevant to refer to the situation in Iran today.

Mr. Dalyell: It was when my hon. Friend gave the foreign affairs group of

the PLP the advantage of his recent experience at the grass roots in Iran that many of us learnt about the folly of what we are about. The House has always prided itself on first-hand experience. There is always one hon. Member among the 630—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are trying to define whether what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is relevant to amendment No. 14. His experiences in Iran are doubtless of the utmost interest, but they are not particularly related to the amendment.

Mr. Holland: With respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, may I emphasise the essential point. This is a crucial clause in the Bill. It is bizarre that the Bill does not specify penalties.—[Interruption.] I am encouraged by that sort of sheer rowdy reaction from the Conservative Benches. It seems that Ministers have an interest in foreclosing a debate in which the British public can be seriously misled about the feasibility of these sanctions and of the international consequences—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Whatever the British public may be interested in, the Chair is interested in keeping the debate relevant to the amendment. At the moment, I am not satisfied that that is happening.

Mr. Holland: It is interesting for me to sit through one of my first all-night sittings. There appears to be a tendency on both sides of the House—especially on the Benches opposite—to imagine that no hon. Member has anything better to do than to stand on his feet and talk for as long as possible.
If I were allowed to develop the argument—and, frankly, I have been interrupted at virtually every third sentence in the exposition which I have made so far—my speech might be briefer. I am trying to make serious points. I am a new Member of Parliament. If we cannot make essential arguments and be given the chance to develop them, certain hon. Members will not be encouraged to make the Floor of the House the main arena for discussion of issues of major importance.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has been constantly interrupted by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James),


who made a distinguished, concise opening speech on the introduction of his Friday debate on the Brandt commission report. Surely he, of all Conservative Members, understands the relevance of first-hand experience in a developing country. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his colleagues—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. First-hand experience is obviously of the utmost importance, but so far as the Chair is concerned the speeches of hon. Members must be relevant to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Holland: Essentially, my argument is that the Government have not introduced sanctions with teeth. I am opposed to their doing so, partly because I think I understand their reasons for not doing so. They appreciate that a gesture has to be made to the American people and that sanctions must appear to work, but they recognise that sanctions are unlikely to work in practice. Introducing penalties on sanctions will bring the Government into ignominy, inasmuch as not only will there be anomalies but the Iranian economy is unlikely to suffer significantly from the sanctions.
I said previously that the modern, multinational sector of the Iranian economy is already on its knees. It cannot get components now. The banking sector has already been thrown into crisis by the fact that multinational banks have withdrawn their personnel, and most of the managers in large companies have already left the country. There is also major economic disruption at the factory level.
2.30 am
The outskirts of Tehran include a whole range of modern construction projects that are not being completed, sometimes referred to as the graveyard of the Shah's housing hopes. There is a main arterial road which runs for several tens of kilometres each way outside Tehran where multinational company after multinational company has already closed its facilities.
I assume that Ministers are aware that a massive number of peasants who previously came to the towns, and whose disruption and movement off the land was one of the dislocating factors in the Shah's agricultural reform, are returning to an under-employed rather than an over-employed

agriculture, which is highly relevant to the question of unemployment.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It may well be relevant to unemployment, but is it relevant to amendment No. 14?

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I know that the hour is late, but I have observed that both you and your predecessor in the Chair have had some difficulty in keeping hon. Members in order. There has already been a suggestion from the Government side that the debate should be closured. May I put it to you that those of us who have been waiting to speak should not be punished because in the opinion of the Chair earlier speakers have strayed a little from the point?

The First Deputy Chairman: Mr. Holland.

Mr. Holland: Let us assume that the Government are serious and want sanctions to bite. If there is any point to the Bill, specific penalties should be proposed. It is very difficult to see either in the modern industrial sector of the economy or in banking and insurance how sanctions could bite. It is also difficult to see how there could be a major social disruption as a consequence of sanctions biting. The peasants who previously went to the town and constituted the industrial working class have been losing their jobs and have already started to go back to the land. The main outflow of those workers has already happened. The Government have even displayed posters about it around Tehran, trying to make the best of a bad thing—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment or the Bill.

Mr. Holland: With respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, I submit that it is crucially important to the Bill, because it is still an open question whether the Government intend to introduce effective sanctions. I congratulate Ministers on their Delphic exercise. Here we have a Bill on sanctions which has no explicit penalty. Are we to take it on assurance that a further statement will be introduced which will specify the penalties if and after we have agreed them with our European partners?
The arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) are highly relevant. If the Government intend that sanctions should bite and have teeth, it is important for the Government to realise that the teeth will be biting on very little in the State of Iran, and it is highly improbable that they will have any significant economic effect.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, sotto voce, that they will be biting on British citizens. There must be no misunderstanding. If they are to work, they will also affect Iranian citizens. We come back to the purpose of this exercise in relation to the American hostages. From his first-hand experience in Iran, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) is making the case that what we are up to in relation to sanctions—and penalties in particular—will make it less likely that the hostages will get out of Iran.

Mr. Holland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian for that intervention, because it raises two serious elements. It is unlikely that sanctions, even with penalties, will have a significant effect in dragging the Iranian economy further down. What has happened there is that the modern sector of the Iranian economy has collapsed and the country is back to the basic peasant rural-urban economy which previously obtained.
That economy is sustained by oil. Iran has the oil and can support the motor cars running around Tehran. The only area of Tehran which is in patent crisis is the traffic system. Apart from the specific cosmetic affluence which gives Tehran the appearance of a modern city, when one moves out of the capital one sees the working of the economy and realises that it can survive.
In that case, who will be hurt by the sanctions? If the Government are not serious in thinking that the sanctions will bite, then it is clear that the penalties will be inflicted upon us. They will be inflicted upon those employed in this country and upon our exports rather than upon the Iranians. In this context, the statement by the Government is unclear. It should be clarified to the extent that we should be told when these penalties will be introduced.
I cannot accept that the Government are serious about sanctions if we do not have the penalties specified. I would oppose those penalties partly because it seems to me that the Government may well be doing something intelligent, in the circumstances, with the Bill and with a clause without penalties. It is just conceivable that the Government have considered that the Bill will be interpreted in Washington as a gesture to the rising anger at the Iranian situation, to which it appears we are expecting the President and the governing establishment there to respond—in some measure automatically.
The Government may be hoping that the gesture will be perceived as such in Washington. But it will be perceived in Tehran for what it really is—a measure without teeth, a cosmetic measure directed mainly towards Washington. I believe that that would be one of the best things for the hostages. If anything is likely to endanger the future of the hostages and to sustain the Tehran regime, it will be a Bill with teeth which embodies precisely the kind of amendment that has been proposed and which I oppose.
The classic element of the revolutionary situation in Iran is that essentially it was not an economic revolution. It was primarily a political and social revolution. It was a revolution in which a certain class was deprived of the political power it had enjoyed under the previous oppressive regime. It is important to realise that to think that we can bring the new regime down by pulling the economic rug from underneath it is profoundly to misread the situation.
All that we will do—even though the modern sector of the Iranian economy is on its knees—is aggravate the situation. My reading of events when I was there, and from contacts with Iranians since I came back, is that it is highly arguable that the best gift which could be made to the more oppressive and ugly aspects of the new regime is a policy of tough sanctions with the type of penalty specified in the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Ayatollah is on record as saying that he welcomes the advantage to his Government that austerity will bring? The man in charge has said that he welcomes austerity.

Mr. Holland: That is relevant to the hostages question. My experience in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran makes plain that the only way in which the political, social, ideological and religious euphoria which swept the regime into power can be sustained is by covering up the basic failure of the regime to cope with the underlying economic and social problems. The basic aspirations of the Iranian people are to have a decent home, decent food and decent clothing at a reasonable price. The regime maintains its internal cohesion by response to external—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I still find it difficult to relate the argument to amendment No. 14 Unless the hon. Gentleman comes back to that, I shall have to take another view.

Mr. Holland: I have chosen to speak to the amendment and about whether the sanctions have teeth precisely to clarify why the Committee is being treated to this otherwise incomprehensible Bill. The clause refers to penalties. Sanctions without penalties are a type of placebo. I am trying to clarify why there is no specification. Perhaps the Government have the interests of the hostages at heart. Perhaps they simply want to make a gesture to the United States and do not wish to encourage internal opposition to the regime. If the sanctions policy succeeds, internal opposition to the external pressure of sanctions is bound to be brought to bear on the Khomeini regime. The pressures will be against an increasingly geriatric regime. Not every Ayatollah is of the age of this leadership. The pressure will be to take retribution on the hostages.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is saying that sanctions rejuvenate the undesirable elements of the regime. If that is the argument, it raises questions about sanctions and penalties.

Mr. Holland: My argument is based on the actual state of the Iranian economy rather than a fantasised view of the economy. The convention is that one criticises Ministers rather than officials. The argument must be directed against Ministers. Following the courtesy shown me by the Foreign Office and the Iranian embassy, I do not criticise Foreign Office officials. But the issue is crucial to the

stability of Middle East relations and to peace itself. It is important that the Government come clean on the matter. We should know whether the Government expect the sanctions to work. If they expect them to work, what account have they taken of the consequences, such as those who support the regime putting pressure on it to retaliate against the hostages? If we do not—

Mr. Rhodes James: How does one retaliate against hostages?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will not follow that point. I was under the impression that he was on his last sentence.

Mr. Holland: Before I was so brusquely interrupted, I was on my last sentence. To give a monosyllabic answer to a monosyllabic question, one retaliates against hostages by killing them. It astonishes me that, when we are trying to debate serious issues, all that we hear from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is a cheap Cambridge, Oxford or Sussex union debate. It may interest the House to know that the hon. Gentleman and I were, until recently, so-called colleagues at the university of Sussex. He is delaying the House. He is obstructing a serious debate. I do not know whether he is doing so to settle some old scores that I have long since forgotten. I wish that he would either contribute to the debate or not do so. If he is regarding the retaliation against the hostages as a joking matter, without considering their lives, it is—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not within the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Godman Irvine, for remaining me that the intervention of the hon. Member for Cambridge is not relevant to the amendment. However, the question remains, and I hope that the Minister will answer. Are the Government serious about the Bill? If they are serious, do they intend it to have penalties and powers? Do they intend it to bite? Is it a cosmetic exercise, or is it a real exercise? If it is a real exercise, what consequences are there then for the hostages who, regrettably,


have been left substantially out of account by many hon. Members?

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister's intervention some time ago proved that there is a real and substantial constitutional and parliamentary issue raised by the amendment and by the manner in which the Bill is drafted. The Minister stated that the penalties would be laid down in subordinate legislation under the Bill. It is, and would be admitted to be, a principle to which the House has adhered in legislation that the authority for penalties, if not laid down in a Bill—which they are normally, and should be—and authorised to be made by subordinate legislation, should be specific on the face of the Bill; and very often also the limits within which it could be exercised would be shown on the face of the Bill. I do not think that it would be disputed that that is the normal form, the general rule, followed in legislation.
The Minister pointed out that there is a precedent to the form of the Bill in the context of the Rhodesia sanctions. Indeed, he told us—and I accept it—that the actual wording with which we are dealing is a repetition of the wording in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. If that is so, it still does not absolve us from considering in this Bill the constitutional issue that is raised by the provision of penalties by subordinate legislation.
I accept that under the 1939 Act it was no doubt possible to do just that. However, not only is that an Act which I do not think we can call in aid by way of precedent, but the Government have expressly dissociated themselves from any desire to use that Act in its full potentialities, and accept the duty to comply with the normal forms of legislative provision. That is to say, anything which they do under the 1939 Act they will bring before the House, as nearly as possible, as if it were being done under this or any normal Bill. That appears in column 919 of yesterday's debate.
I apply myself, therefore, disregarding the 1939 Act, to the wording of the

clause. In respect of penalties, presumably, there are two aspects of the clause upon which the making of subordinate legislation could rely. The first is in subsection (3), which refers to:
such provision for imposing prohibitions, restrictions or obligations as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid.
It would be difficult to read into those words the authorisation of subordinate legislation to create penalties. The second appeal which I think was made is to subsection (5), to which the amendment is attached. It states:
An Order in council may make "—
I shall come later to the words
or authorise the making of "—
and it continues:
such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions as appear to be expedient".
I think I am correct in saying that in the normal interpretation of those words, which are indeed very common form, they are not commonly taken to authorise the subordinate legislation made under the principal Acts to impose and create penalties. Indeed, the ambit of
incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions 
is commonly treated as very narrow.
I therefore put it to the Government that the natural meaning of the wording of the clause does not adequately cover the imposition of penalties by subordinate Orders in Council. If it be the case, as the Minister says, that the form of the clause has a precedent in the Southern Rhodesia Act, it is all the more necessary for us to consider very carefully, when we repeat it in this instance, what we are doing.
My first proposition is that the wording of the clause does not adequately cover, even by implication, the use of subordinate legislation to impose penalties. My second proposition is that, even if it did by implication authorise it, the making of penalties by subordinate legislation ought to be specifically authorised on the face of the principal Bill—penalties being so serious a matter to be dealt with by subordinate legislation.
My third point relates to the phrase in subsection (5) which I left out when I quoted it previously. It says that
An Order in Council under this section may make or authorise the making of".


That is to say, an Order in Council can say that a Department may make regulations. That is, as it were, a sub-delegation of the power of subordinate legislation. I assert that, if it is upon this subsection that the Government are to rely for the creation of penalties, it is monstrous that they should be relying upon a clause which permits sub-delegation of the relevant power. I hope that when the Minister responds again, as I hope he will, he will make it clear for the sake of a considerable principle that is at stake that the Government accept that penalties in general should not be made by subordinate legislation and that penalties should be applied and defined by principal legislation so that the House of Commons has the opportunity to consider them and, if it thinks fit, to amend them, both matters being either impracticable or limited in the context of subordinate legislation.
I should like the Government to acknowledge, first, that they accept in principle the undesirability of the imposing of penalties by subordinate legislation and, secondly, that where it is intended that penalties should exceptionally be imposed by subordinate legislation the power to do so in the principal Act should be specific and should appear on the face of the Bill, as the amendment provides.

Mr. Parkinson: I am advised that, provided that offences relate to the contracts described in clause 1(1) and (2) and that the creation of a criminal offence in that regard is necessary or expedient in consequence of breaches of international law by Iran, provision in the form of criminal offences may be made. The only restriction is on the ground of excessive jurisdiction. That is described in detail in clause 1(4). That subsection envisages that
no provision so made shall render a person guilty of an offence in respect of anything done or omitted".
In other words, it implies that if the creation of a criminal offence is necessary or expedient as a result of the breaches, the relevant power is included in the earlier provisions. I am advised that this is the way in which the power to introduce criminal sanctions has been introduced into other legislation. I am advised that additions of the sort that appear on the Order Paper would be unnecessary and

add nothing to the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, which was helpful. If I understand him aright, he is stating that the power to impose penalties by subordinate legislation is deemed to be conferred not by subsection (5) but by subsections (1) and (3).

Mr. Parkinson: That is right.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has removed the prospect that there could be sub-delegation under subsection (5) of the power to impose penalties.
I return to the more general point—namely, whether it is proper that the power to impose penalties by subordinate legislation should be implied and derivative and not specific upon the face of the Bill. I do not personally regard it—nor do I think that the House of Commons should regard it—as appropriate that a power by Order in Council to create penalties should be inferred from the terms "necessary or expedient" that occur in subsection (3).
I have no desire to over-labour the point, especially at this hour, but I do not think it will be disputed that the matter is one of genuine constitutional importance. This place is properly jealous of the power of imposing penalties and chary of allowing that power over the subject out of its own hands; for whenever that power is exercised by subordinate legislation control effectively passes—to a certain extent—from the House
3 am
Having listened to the Minister, I still believe it to be unsatisfactory that the Bill contains no explicit reference to a power to impose penalties. It is unfortunate if a precedent was set in the Rhodesia legislation; and even at this late hour, this occasion might well serve to mark our opinion that the precedent set by that Bill should not be followed. It is, therefore, appropriate—regardless of whether the words are strictly essential—that the amendment should be added to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Division No. 299]
AYES
[3.01 am


Alexander, Richard
Hannam, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ancram, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Heddle, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Henderson, Barry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Banks, Robert
Hill, James
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Ridsdale, Julian


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hooson, Tom
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Blackburn, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom
Silvester, Fred


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sims, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Keith


Bright, Graham
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Brotherton, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, lain


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lyell, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


Buck, Antony
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Budgen, Nick
Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Marland, Paul
Stanley, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Clegg, Sir Walter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cockeram, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Colvin. Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cope, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Crouch, David
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Donald


Dover, Denshore
Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Monro, Hector
Trippier, David


Durant, Tony
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wakeham, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Murphy, Christopher
Waldegrave, Hon William


Elliott, Sir William
Myles, David
Walker, Bill (Perth S E Perthshire)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Newton, Tony
Watson, John


Forman, Nigel
Normanton, Tom
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fox, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Wheeler, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Whitney, Raymond


Caret-Jones, Tristan
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Wickenden, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Goodlad, Alastair
Parkinson, Cecil
Wolfson, Mark


Gorst, John
Parris, Matthew
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Patten, Christopher (Bath)



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Patten, John (Oxford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Percival, Sir Ian
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Gummer, John Selwyn
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. David Waddington.


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Rathbone, Tim



NOES


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin



Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours.


Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

The First Deputy Chairman: No. I am directed now to put the Question.

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 10.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 153.

NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gummer, John Selwyn
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ancram, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Renton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Hannam, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hawksley, Warren
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Banks, Robert
Heddle, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Henderson, Barry
Ridsdale, Julian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hill, James
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Best, Keith
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hooson, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Blackburn, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shersby, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Silvester, Fred


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sims, Roger


Bright, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom
Speed, Keith


Brinton, Tim
Knight, Mrs Jill
Speller, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Brotherton, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, lain


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Buck, Antony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stainton, Keith


Budgen, Nick
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin


Clegg, Sir Walter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cockeram, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cope, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Crouch, David
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Tebbit, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thompson, Donald


Dover, Denshore
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Durant, Tony
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wakeham, John


Elliott, Sir William
Murphy, Christopher
Waldegrave, Hon William


Fairgrieve, Russell
Myles, David
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Forman, Nigel
Normanton, Tom
Watson, John


Fox, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wheeler, John


Freud, Clement
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Whitney, Raymond


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Parkinson, Cecil
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Goodlad, Alastair
Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Gorst, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gow, Ian
Patten, John (Oxford)



Gower, Sir Raymond
Percival, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Tony Newton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. During the last debate, which lasted five minutes under two hours, the Government Whip, twice unsuccessfully and finally successfully sought to move the closure.
I shall not, of course, make any attempt to make the speech which I would have done if I had been called. That would be completely out of order. I simply say that I hope you will draw to the attention of the Government, if that is within your powers, the fact that although the hour is late—I appreciate the mounting irritation of Tory Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have been in their position too often to fail to appreciate the irritation they feel at being kept here at this time.

Nevertheless, the serious point I wish to make is that the fact that it is late—3.25 am—is not the fault of my hon. Friends. The Government seek to put legislation of this kind through in a very restricted—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.

Mr. Lamond: It is rather difficult be cause of the interruptions. I assure the Committee that I am not trying to delay it. I am making a serious point which I think it should bear in mind. The legislation must be examined. I am sorry if it is 3.25 am. I wished to make what I thought was a sensible speech. Unfortunately, one of my hon. Friends took up more than half of the time allowed. I am not responsible for that, either, or


for the lateness of the hour. Because of that, the Government Chief Whip thought it right to attempt to move the closure after an hour and 10 minutes and then after a further half an hour and finally, successfully, after less than two hours. I ask you, Mr. Godman Irvine, to bear in mind that Back Benchers on the Opposition side of the Committee have rights, which Tory Members may wish to exercise at some time in the future—when they will have my support to see that they get the opportunity to make relevant speeches at that time.

The First Deputy Chairman: There is nothing the hon. Gentleman has said which is a point of order for me. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair always takes into consideration all relevant matters.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. For the convenience of those who think that the House of Commons ought to perform its normal, traditional, scrutiny function—and as an aside I say "Heaven knows why the Government find it necessary to have 150 hon. Members here." Fifty would have done the job quite well. I can assure Conservative Members that there is no one hiding in the woodwork. These are serious matters. If there is to be proper scrutiny, it should be conducted correctly. May I know the criterion, Mr. Godman Irvine, on which you accept closure motions?

The First Deputy Chairman: Closure motions are a matter for the discretion of the Chair, which is exercised after taking into consideration all the relevant matters.

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 6, leave out
or within the territorial waters of".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we can also discuss amendment No. 23, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19.

Mr. Dalyell: The initial point which arises is how on earth one begins to police territorial waters. How does one make these sanctions effective, and, above all, how does one do it without getting into all of the dangers and difficulties of armed clash?
3.30 am
I do not doubt the Government's sincerity when they say that they eschew military action. The overwhelming number of Conservative Members, with a few exceptions—the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is one of them—have said that on no account would they become involved in military action. But military action can start, albeit inadvertently, by incidents or circumstances that none can foresee. We have to ask—this is the nub of amendment No. 19—what arrangements are to be made for any kind of investigation into what ships are carrying and what they are not carrying. How will it be known that ships are from countries that are applying sanctions? The Indians, for example, are not applying sanctions. The Iranians have stipulated that the increasing amount of goods received from India will be carried in Indian ships. That illustrates, if I may comment in an aside, how this country is losing hard-won trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I, at Question Time, drew attention to an interview allegedly given by Mr. Harold Brown, the United States Defence Secretary, reported in The Guardian, to the Italian newspaper It Tempo in Rome. There is no doubt that the newspaper report is generally and probably completely accurate. Mr. Brown is reported as saying that, because the Americans wanted to concentrate more of their resources in South-East Asia, it was high time that NATO and Japan patrolled the Persian Gulf. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) might well use an expletive that I shall not repeat. One wonders whether people in positions of considerable power in the White House have learnt anything from the Bay of Pigs and the Gulf of Tongking.
We have to be careful about the whole issue of territorial waters, especially in the Gulf area. Heaven help us if the notion is seriously held that there should be patrols by navies of the NATO countries and Japan in that sensitive area. Not even our best friends in the Gulf among the emirs or the Saudis would consider such a notion sensible. One has to consider the smuggling aspect. We are asked to impose sanctions, yet I am told repeatedly that not only American but many other


types of goods are getting into Iran. I do not wish to name people or get them into trouble, but the Financial Times of 25 April states that
An official at the Committee for Middle East Trade (a section of the British Overseas Trade Board) points out that despite the crisis in US-Iranian relations, American goods had continued to reach Iran, partly through ports on the Arab shore of the Gulf. Dubai, in particular, might be used not only for circumventing a Western boycott, but for its more traditional role as an embarkation point for smuggling goods into Iran.
Do Foreign Office Ministers deny that that is happening? Are we to take action against Dubai? If we do not, the whole exercise becomes absurd; and, if we do, we shall get into the most terrible problems of alienating oil producers and others on whom our manufacturing industry, rightly or wrongly, is virtually geared.
What are we on about? If the policy is to be effective, there must be some sort of Beira patrol, which would create unearthly problems and open a Pandora's box of strategic problems for this country.
This is a probing amendment, but these matters have to be answered. I see that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is the Prime Minister's PPS, is in the Chamber. I address my remarks to him in the hope that they will be relayed to Downing Street, which is the destination to which they should go. If we do not investigate goods going to third countries, whether Turkey, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Dubai or Bahrain, we shall have no hope of making the policy effective.
When the Conservatives were in Opposition, the hon. Member for Eastbourne made many speeches about the effectiveness in the outside world of what the House did. I remember the hon Gentleman's frequent references to Dr. Witteveen and the IMF, and, in friendliness, I return to him the fact that the policy in the Bill suffers from the same faults as he used to criticise in the Labour Government's legislation, namely, that, by definition, it will be ineffective in the real world.
If I have repeated the question in various forms it is because it has not yet been answered. We all recognise that this is a fiasco of a policy and cannot work. I intended to refer to earlier remarks of the

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I do not wish to take too long, to the detriment of my hon. Friends.
The amendments concern the shipping industry. One could shrug one's shoulders and say that sanctions will be neutralised by goods being shipped to other countries and ferried to Iran—there is plenty of surplus tonnage in the Gulf—but there will be a bias against those who have imposed sanctions and a favourable attitude towards those who have not done so.
We can be sure that our industrial competitors, not only in Western Europe but in Taiwan, the Philippines and South Korea, will certainly not impose sanctions or incur the odium that we shall attract for policies that are, by definition, ineffective and can hardly impress the Americans. The Americans will see through the style and nature of the political will involved in this policy. At the end of the day, the main beneficiary may be the Russian railway system, because many of the goods will be transported not by ship but by rail. These amendments also raise the issue of aircraft, and the main beneficiary will be Aeroflot.
If any hon. Member thinks that I am exaggerating, the facts are there to see. During the last month, Iran has signed agreements with East Berlin, Leipzig and Bucharest, and doubtless with other Eastern bloc countries. Although they may not want Russian and East European goods as a first preference, as soon as those goods start flowing they are unlikely to change back to other suppliers. We are not taking an ephemeral decision. It is not a decision that can be reversed once the hostages are returned. Long after they are returned we shall be paying the price for our actions; and our actions in supporting sanctions will not be forgotten.
I suspect that that is why one European country in particular is being extremely careful. That country is Italy. Let us examine the position of the Italians. Italy has about $3,000 million—about £1,300 million—tied up in construction projects in Iran.

The First Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me as to how that can possibly relate to the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: The main Italian effort is at the Barga Abbas harbour. That raises the question of territorial waters. I should explain that Italy's State-owned construction firm—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I fear that that does not satisfy me at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read out the amendment and then he will be able to relate it to his argument.

Mr. Dalyell: Amendment no. 19 reads:
leave out ' or within the territorial waters of '.
We are discussing the
control of a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom or any other country or territory to which the Act extends.
Since the Government have made great play of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) called the pari passu relationship with our partners, this is surely relevant to the position of the Italians. The Italians also have problems with their steel industry, but I shall not go into that.
The substantial point remains. Unless sanctions are effective—the amendment raises the question that by definition they cannot be effective—we are deeply injuring this country for ends that are illusory.
I wish to give my hon. Friends time to speak on this amendment, so I shall leave the matter there.

Mr. McNamara: I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in probing the Government's intentions. In line 2 on page 2 there is a reference to "acts or omissions". I am concerned with the omissions. Everything that the clause refers to in terms of contracts or the supply of goods and services is a positive action. An omission is a negative action, and I cannot understand why the word "omissions" is included.
This becomes of importance in line 6. Amendment no. 19 seeks to delete the words:
or within the territorial waters of".
What is an act of omission
within the territorial waters of, the United Kingdom or a country or territory to which this Act extends "?
Every other provision within the clause concerns a positive act—to enter into a

contract, to continue a contract, to renew a contract, to supply goods and services. A failure to do so would seem to carry out the terms of what the Bill seeks to do within or without the territorial waters. Therefore, I fail to understand why that phrase is included.
From the phrase
within the territorial waters of, the United Kingdom or a country or territory to which this Act extends 
we have to refer to clause 2(5) to see where the territorial waters extend. We find that the Act extends not only to the United Kingdom but
to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any colony and (to the extent of Her Majesty's jurisdiction therein) to any foreign country or territory in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction".
It is important that we have from the Government Front Bench a definition of the foreign countries or territories in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction. There are people of malevolent mind who, carrying through the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, might suggest that the words extend the principle of the Beira patrol to seizing parts of territories of independent nations, to supplement our effort in pursuing the policy of supporting embargoes and trying to ensure that no goods and services go into Iran.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to omit paragraph (c) of clause 1(4). Clause 1(4) limits liability under the Bill for acts committed within or without United Kingdom territorial waters or otherwise to
a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies…a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.
or a person who is
in control of a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom or any other country or territory to which this Act extends".
But what if we have a foreign national within the areas to which the Bill refers who is not in control of a ship or an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and who is still seeking to obey the provisions of the Bill? Does that mean that we give carte blanche to third parties who are not United Kingdom citizens to carry out those acts which, if such persons were citizens of the United Kingdom, would be illegal? Are they being given carte blanche because they do not owe allegiance to the Queen or are not in control of


a ship or an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom?
The phrasing of the Bill in this particular provision is of importance because of the degree of confusion and vagueness which appears at this point. I would have thought that their Lordships would be seized of this problem and seek to move an amendment. I would not be at all surprised if we saw some member of the judiciary seizing upon the patent unfairness of such a provision.
If the legislation is to go beyond the line of argument that I have advanced, I think that we should look carefully at the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. The practical application of these specific provisions—even if they can be put into operation—will create many problems. Those hon. Members who were in the Gulf recently were able to talk to many people concerned with the politics, the trade and the commerce of that area.
One thing was certain, and that was that none of the traders in that area intended to regard themselves as bound by any legislation designed by the West to impose sanctions, whether within or without their territorial waters or ours.
What if a supplier of goods and services in the United Kingdom received an order from a firm acting in the normal course of wholesale business in one of the Gulf areas and supplied the goods ordered? If the goods are supplied in the normal course of business and are transhipped to Iran—having already been conveyed to the wholesaler in a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom—what is the degree of liability of the supplier of goods and services, or of the owner of the aircraft or ship?
We cannot on this occasion turn a blind eye—or perhaps we can and repeat the fiasco of the oil shipments to Rhodesia—to goods being transhipped to ports adjacent to Iran, for onward delivery to that country. If we send goods to Dubai, Bahrain or somewhere else in the Emirates, they are as likely to go to Saudi Arabia, further east in the Gulf area, or across the sea to Iran. The technicalities of policing such activity in relation to transhipment documents and bills of lading at this end of the operation would be sufficiently difficult to render the

situation somewhat farcical.
If there is to be an effective economic embargo and if the powers in the Bill are to be used, it is not sufficient for action to be taken in concert merely with the United States of America, or even with other members of the EEC. It must have the active co-operation of the other trading partners of the country against which the sanctions are taken. In particular, it must have the co-operation of the adjacent countries.
A ridiculous position could arise. A person could be in control of a ship registered in the United Kingdom and take goods to an adjacent country with the knowledge—perhaps not written or contractual—that the goods will be shipped to Iran. That person will not be guilty of an offence, but if his ship takes goods direct to Iran he will be guilty. If suppliers of goods and services with a degree of moral rectitude which was not shown in the Rhodesian situation decide that it is against the spirit of the legislation to supply goods and services, they will sit back and see Formosa, Korea and other countries supply the goods and services.
How do we patrol our territorial waters or the waters of any country over which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction? The immediate reaction must be that we should have naval or aerial vigilance. We all know the extent to which we are stretched in trying to preserve our fisheries limits and we know the difficulties involved in trying to enforce such control. We know of the strains that such action would put on our NATO and other commitments.
I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy is in the Chamber. Perhaps he will explain the effectiveness of a blockade to try to enforce the control of ships and aircraft.
If one has been to the Straits of Hormuz, one will have had drawn forcibly to one's attention the large amount of commerce and trade that uses that narrow stretch of water, none of which necessarily goes to Iran but much of which goes to the other Gulf States and the Saudis. How do we enforce control there? How can it be done when the country against which sanctions are imposed, with large air and naval forces supplied by Britain


and the United States, controls the northern shore of that narrow strip of water? That makes a laughing stock of the provisions.
The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have said that we shall eschew military action. I hope that the Government also take that attitude.

Mr. Dalyell: Would not the greatest resentment be caused if, for example, ships were to be searched on their way to Bahrain and Kuwait and not to an Iranian port? Is it not easy to say that the goods are destined for Kuwait or Bahrain? Surely, any sort of effective sanctions would create enormous trouble for our friends on the southern shore of the Gulf.

4 am

Mr. McNamara: I am not even certain that the word "effective" is right in that context. As I indicated earlier, one of the conclusions expressed by several distinguished holders of high office in Gulf States was that at the Islamic conference the United States would be arraigned, as the Russians were arraigned for the invasion of Afghanistan. That is unfair, but it will happen. If we, or anyone else, were involved in a blackade or in the imposition of sanctions in that area, we would be surrogate in that invasion of Islamic territory. That attitude would cause tremendous confusion.
The drafting of the provision needs a more careful examination by the Government. Perhaps in another place it will be found easier and more necessary to introduce some corrections to the clause. In terms of one rule for British citizens and another for foreigners, the provisions are most unfair.

Mr. Dalyell: Coming from a fishing community, my hon. Friend knows something about policing operations and the definitions of territorial waters. I know little about that because my constituency is next to the North Sea oil rigs. Any operation trying to investigate what ships are carrying what goods is so fantastically unreal that it should not be attempted. But, if it is not attempted, what on earth are the Bill and the policy about?

Mr. McNamara: I agree with my hon. Friend. He made the point very strongly I shall take the Committee to

the Straits of Hormuz and ask it to imagine a freighter loaded with as many as 30 or 40 containers on the deck. They are sealed, and to examine them would cause a tremendous amount of trouble. It would be wrong to think that one could look at the bills of lading or other shipping documents to see what was inside the containers. We have only to consider the way in which arms have arrived in the Republic of Ireland to realise that documents tell lies as easily as they tell the truth.
The clause would operate unfairly against British nationals as opposed to third parties. It has the strange word "omissions" when we are looking for positive acts. I cannot help feeling that that is a Catch-22 phrase, of which the House would not approve. The Committee must consider the provisions more carefully. It is too much, at this hour of the morning, to ask for manuscript amendments to be accepted—even if we had the ability, at this hour, to draft them. It creates an unfortunate precedent, and we shall listen carefully to what the Minister—

Mr. Dalyell: We have all the haste of having Report and Third Reading spatchcocked into one day, which was less than necessary, because the Government must have known at least two weeks ago—if not a good deal earlier—that they were proposing to introduce sanctions. The Government are using the procedure of the House to their own advantage. If the Whips say "So what", let them understand that people who use Parliament like this must expect themselves to be inconvenienced by certain others who feel very strongly about the policy which they are putting forward.

Mr. McNamara: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wise words of warning to the Government.
I return to the point that I was making. As the Bill is loosely drafted, one looks for some correction, and certainly some careful explanation, of the precise meaning of the situation. But, more than that, the Government should be warned of the folly of seeking to implement this type of policy given the circumstances within the Gulf and within that sensitive area. Even at this late stage, they should think again about whether the provisions which they are seeking to enact, and which we are seeking to amend and somewhat improve,


are necessary and whether we should be trying other methods which would present less danger to our economy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Given my hon. Friend's great experience of fishing and the fishing industry, the sea routes and sea traffic, will he comment on the suggestion which has been made by some commentators in Iran that the Iranian navy may scuttle a number of merchant vessels in the Straits to which he referred? Will he comment on the implication which the scuttling of a number of commercial vessels in those Straits might have on the transport of oil from the Middle East and also on the transport of a number of other products which come through those Straits and end up in the markets of Europe?

Mr. McNamara: I think that would create problems in terms of how the Bill was put into operation. If the amendments were passed, in terms of within and without the territorial waters it would create a number of problems each way. Certainly, with regard to the patrolling of the area and the sea lanes in a strip of water which is a bit wider than the English Channel at its narrowest, it would seem that the scuttling of vessels, while creating problems, would not present insuperable problems and that the Royal Omani navy, on whose ships I was privileged to sail, would adequately be able to create other lanes because of the depth of water which exists. However, I am not at all certain whether that would be possible or effective.
I would have thought that a greater threat to the Straits from the Iranian side would be the stationing of mobile artillery batteries along the coast, as well as the use of Iran's own navy to blockade, stop and search. If the Iranians were to do that in that part of the Straits which is international waters, that would create all sorts of other problems.
Similarly, there is the problem of laying mines. Again, that could be seen to be directed not only at Iran but also at the other countries of the Gulf, which must use the Straits as a way of entrance to their own territorial areas and ports. A policy of the West which resulted in any sort of reaction such as that from Iran would put at serious risk the large

oil supplies which come through the Straits to the Canal or round the Cape to the West.
I do not believe that a lot of these policies have been carefully thought out. In going through with a policy such as this and in passing the Bill, I wonder what changes in policy or decisions are likely to be made in the United States, about which our own Foreign Secretary will not be informed and which he may learn from the eight o'clock news the following morning.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the future of oil supplies to Western Europe and to the democracies of the Western world may be dependent on the activities of perhaps a single British monitoring ship that may be sent to the area to monitor the passage of goods and transport through the Straits? If it were to make a mild mistake and upset the Iranian authorities, does my hon. Friend agree that it could precipitate an action that would have an amazing, if not incredible, effect on the economy of the Western world? Is that what he is suggesting?

Mr. McNamara: That is not what I am suggesting. I am not making the scenario as horrid as that. I do not think that one ship would be sent on such a task. Even Her Majesty's Government have sufficient sense not to do that. Secondly, it would not happen in the way that my hon. Friend has postulated. Instead, there would be a tightening of the screw. There would be an increase of prices and a cutting down of production. In that way, the oil-producing States would still get their revenue or income. However, they would be turning the screw a little further and a little tighter upon Western industries and economies.
I think that the States learnt from the events of the Yom Kippur war and the seven days' war how to use the oil weapon. The weapon would be used far more subtly. That is what has been done over the past 10 years. Its use has been much more subtle than direct brute force. If there were some action on the Straits which developed into a great international incident, the alliance that has been made by the Islamic States and the attitude to the American incursion into Tehran would be such as to escalate the scale of the problem.

Mr. Dalyell: If there were that sort of pressure, is it not correct to say that many of the Gulf States might exercise their undoubted option of deciding that the best thing that they could do with their oil would be to keep it in the ground? That is fairly widely said, and it has been written about by Valerie Yorke and others. It seems to some of us to be a serious option. My hon. Friend has visited the area, and perhaps he will confirm that view.

Mr. McNamara: That is one of the options. Over the past few years there has been a cutting back in production. The Gulf States consider their oil to be a major but diminishing resource that they want to harbour and to use to their best advantage. They have realised that a greater income of petrodollars is not such a great asset unless it can be used sensibly and not squandered. Therefore, they are cutting back production. It is one of the possibilities that has to be taken into consideration.
The control of territorial waters and actions by ships and aircraft is positively fraught with danger. It has to be considered with a great degree of care. There is only one Gulf State which has the ability not to use the Straits—namely, the Sultanate of Oman, which can tranship directly into the Indian Ocean.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will try to set our minds at rest.

Mr. Hurd: This has been a slightly curious debate. The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have dealt with a series of scenarios affecting the territorial waters of the Gulf. They have dealt with Italian steelworks, the reactions of Gulf States, and so on. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been led into a slightly fantastic world. His imagination has fed those alarming scenarios.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister saying that that scenario is inconceivable?

Mr. Hurd: I would say that it is as improbable as his earlier idea that a firm in his constituency, which sells goods to Iraq, would suffer as a result of a Bill that affects Iran. The two countries are on

the worst possible terms. There has been some fantasising. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman. However, the amendment concerns the United Kingdom's territorial waters. It is not concerned with the territorial waters of the Gulf. Much of the discussion has ranged rather wide. If there is a Division, hon. Members should vote on the amendment.
Once again, the hon. Member for West Lothian produced arguments against the whole policy. He would have used those same arguments if he had been called to speak on Second Reading. His points have been answered several times. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not repeat them. There will be an opportunity to rehearse those arguments—one hopes, in the new form—on Third Reading. I shall not complain that he has used this opportunity to repeat his general charge.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central put together a series of reasonable legal questions. I shall try to deal with some of those questions now. I shall explain later why some of his other questions should probably be left. He made a reasonable point about "omissions". I am advised that if a British captain of a British ship failed to prevent his ship from proceeding to Iran, in defiance of an order approved by the House, he might be guilty of an act of omission under the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about transhipment. That is a relevant point. He asked about the liability of a ship-owner who became involved in such a transaction. I understand that the owners and captain of a British ship would become liable in such transactions, even if they were outside United Kingdom territorial waters. That is the normal definition of the jurisdiction of the House. Any ship inside United Kingdom ports or territorial waters would be liable. I understand that that is a fully precedented definition of the scope of British jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is distinguished from, and narrower than, the claims made by the United States of America.
Answers to such questions will depend not so much on the enactment of the Bill as on the nature of the order that is later submitted. They will depend on the choice of powers that the House approves, the nature of the transaction and, if


necessary, the interpretation of that transaction in our courts.
These amendments have not been the subject of much discussion during the debate. Amendment No. 19 would make it impossible for a criminal offence to apply to acts done within the United Kingdom's territorial waters. In fact, this would be anomalous, because the Continental Shelf Act 1964 would continue, even if the words referred to here were left out, to make it possible for acts done on the United Kingdom continental shelf to constitute criminal offences.
As I have made clear, there is no objection under customary international law to a coastal State creating criminal offences relating to acts occurring in its territorial waters.
The purpose of amendment No. 23 would be to exclude the possibility of creating criminal offences applicable to a person in control of a United Kingdom registered ship or aircraft. Again, there is no international law objection to a State assuming criminal jurisdiction over ships or aircraft registered in its territory. Not to impose such penalties and not to define the Bill in this way would certainly create a large gap in what we are trying to do.
For these reasons, I recommend the Committee not to accept the two amendments.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will my hon. Friend deal with the important point of the hypothetical foreigner resident here and operating from this country vessels sailing under a foreign flag?

Mr. Hurd: I am reluctant to give an answer off the cuff on that question, but I see its importance and I should like to look into the matter and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Dalyell: The first Committee on which I ever served was that which considered the Continental Shelf Bill in 1964. That this legislation should be invoked in exactly this context—it was certainly designed for very different reasons—just shows how we can pass legislation with a whole set of purposes in mind which can be very far removed from the set of purposes for which it is ultimately used.
The Minister said that it was a question

of the nature of the order and the interpretation of the transaction in our courts. Once again, this reveals what a pig in a poke the House looks like assenting to. I simply register the fact that I think that the position is profoundly unsatisfactory.
Yes, it was a probing amendment. Yes, certain issues to do with the waters of the Persian Gulf were raised, because there was a very great difficulty—

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister spoke about two things. He spoke about a transhipment, and he said that a person would be guilty. He did not examine the question whether increases in purchases of goods from one country to another would be taken evidentially to mean that there would be a breach of a sanction order if there were increases in the supply of goods to a particular port.
Secondly, the wording of subsection (4) is that the Bill extends to territorial waters of the United Kingdom
or a country or territory to which this Act extends".
The definition in clause 2(5) states:
This Act extends to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any colony and (to the extent of Her Majesty's jurisdiction therein) to any foreign country or territory in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction.
Which foreign countries are we likely to be referring to and what sort of catch-all provision is this, in extending, in some sort of neo-imperialistic way, the jurisdiction of Her Majesty?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I recollect that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), during the debate on Lords reform and then on subsequent occasions,—dare I mention it?—in the whole devolution argument, explained how it was that the House of Commons was performing its scrutiny function, its function of self-education. I simply reply to my hon. Friend that he has yet again raised a question of substance and something that has not been properly thought about.
The function of this Chamber is, above all, to look hard at this kind of controversial, possibly quickly prepared, legislation that is put before us. As soon as we begin to scrutinise it, it is like turning up a stone from under which all sorts of animals come out. It may not have been suspected that those animals


were there in the first place, but that is the whole point of what I might call a self-destruction process.
The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned how on previous occastions hon. Members had come in during the long, protracted proceeding, had got something of the atmosphere of the debate and had gone out shaking their heads and saying perhaps that there was a smell of death about the legislation.
I am not pretending that there is a smell of death about this legislation, because the Prime Minister is too determined and her majority is too large. But I should like to think that, even if we have taken a long time about it—and will go on—quite a number of Members of Parliament on the Government side of the Chamber, who perhaps have been here a relatively short time, will by their very instinct have registered that the measure being put forward has all sorts of consequences that have not been fully discussed—all sorts of side effects, and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) embodied one—and which have not hitherto been thought about.
We are indeed on a perilous course. There will be tears and grief at the end of this road. I do not say that in a party political way; I say it out of experience-One senses that when legislation is fraught with difficulty and Governments try to present it as more simple than it is, they get into trouble. I am no soothsayer, but I can imagine that these points, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and I raised earlier, will time and again come up—I will not say to haunt—to create difficulty, and we shall get deeper and deeper into the morass of alienation of most of the Arab world.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been very patient and his manners are impeccable, but he knits his brow and shakes his head. Some of us think that this is the path along which we are going. We are discussing the alienation of a vast section of our most important market and of our oil supplies. Unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to answer some of the specific issues that have been raised, I propose to divide the Committee on this amendment.

Dr, Alan Glyn: The point that I want to make is simple. What sanctions can be applied to a foreigner, resident in this country, who is operating under a foreign flag? It is clear that a ship can be stopped in territorial waters, but what sanctions can be applied to the foreigner? Can he be deported? Can his residence be restricted? What practical steps can Her Majesty's Government take against a foreigner who, as my hon. Friend suggested, is operating outside territorial waters under a flag which is not registered in this country?

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I may reply briefly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). As he will know from previous discussion, no specific penalties are included in the Bill. We have already traversed this point in the course of the night. The Committee, by a vote, I think, accepted that it was not necessary to provide for that because the penalties would be included, measure by measure, in the orders that might come before the House if the Bill became law. Therefore, it is not possible to be specific about penalties because the Bill is not specific about them. But the kind of person to whom my hon. Friend referred would be within the United Kingdom, under the jurisdiction of the British courts, and thus liable to whatever penalties were imposed by order, approved by the House. That would be the case, even if that foreigner were operating a ship or an airliner registered under a foreign flag.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) has done the Committee a favour by asking that question. I listened carefully to the Minister's answer, which raises the important question of extradition. How on earth can one get the kind of extradition order necessary to enforce this? These people have been evading sanctions for the last 4,000 years. The hon. Member rightly raised the case of those who have international passports, based in the Levant or elsewhere—

Mr. Hard: They may be based here.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister is showing his first signs of petulance, and I do not blame him for that. He says that they


may be based here, but they may not be United Kingdom nationals.

Dr. Glyn: I have been reading the small print, and it seems that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said covers that case. If a person is resident here, he can have the same penalties imposed on him by the courts as a British subject.

Mr. Dalyell: We are getting into more anomalies. British residents are subject to penalties, whereas those penalties do not extend to those who are not British residents or of British nationality but who are evading the sanctions. This is most undesirable. It can be further extended to companies and where they are registered. Are British companies at a disadvantage compared with those that are not registered in Britain?
I realise the Government Whips' problems, but, to be fair, I said earlier that the length of the proceedings would depend on what happened. I am not complaining about the ability or courtesy of the ministerial replies. Both Ministers have treated the Committee with the utmost courtesy, and I am not criticising them but by the very nature of this matter we are discovering as we probe the subject in more detail that more and more questions emerge which have not been properly discussed. The Minister of State shakes his head, but it is true. There are more questions now, and by the end of the day even more will appear.

Dr. Glyn: There are difficulties under the 1948 Act. I am not clear whether the foreign resident would be caught under the legislation, because the Bill says in page 2, line 8:
unless at the time of the act or omission that person is—(a) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
I am not clear under which provision he would be caught.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead raises a substantial issue. He spoke of the difficulties of the 1948 Act. Earlier, the problem was raised in terms of the 1939 Act. But how does what we are discussing fit in with section 3 of the 1939 Act? It reads:

If any goods are imported, exported, carried coastwise or shipped as ships' stores in contravention either of an order under this Act or of the law relating to trading with the enemy "—
how one defines "the enemy" is open to question; and then (b)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Let us get on."] The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has raised an important point and this might be the last time we can go into these things in depth. He has every right to raise them. Then (b):
are brought to any quay or other place, or waterborne, for the purpose of being exported or of being so carried or shipped in contravention either of an order under this Act or of the law relating to trading with the enemy, those goods shall be deemed to be prohibited goods and shall be forfeited; and the exporter of the goods or his agent, or the shipper of the goods, shall be liable, in addition to any other penalty under the enactments relating to customs, to a customs penalty of five hundred pounds.
Nobody in his right mind these days would think that a figure of £500 was suitable. Surely we should be thinking about updating the figures in the 1939 Act.
I must say to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead:
If any such order as aforesaid prohibits the exportation of any goods unless consigned to a particular place or person, and such goods so consigned are delivered otherwise than to that place or person, as the case may be, the vessel in which the goods were exported shall be deemed to have been used in the conveyance of prohibited goods.
I hope I have not got the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead into trouble. I see that the Chief Whip is now having words with him.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is just being leaned upon. He is being given a little guidance.

Mr. Dalyell: Guidance is a very sore subject on this side of the Committee. There are all sorts of precedents in the industrial legislation on that aspect.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has raised a most important issue. How is it intermeshed with section 3(3) of the 1939 Act:
If any goods are imported, exported or shipped as ships' stores, or are brought to any quay or other place, or waterborne, for the purpose of being exported or of being so carried or shipped, an officer of Customs and Excise may require any person possessing or having control of the goods to furnish proof that the importation, exportation or carriage coastwise of the goods or the shipment of the


goods as ships' stores, as the case may be, is not unlawful by virtue either of an order under this Act or of the law relating to trading with the enemy; and if such proof is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise"?
This is the precedental law, and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) need not taunt his hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead. His hon. Friend is acting as a proper parliamentarian should.

Mr. Hurd: The fact is that half an hour ago my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) raised a reasonable and pertinent question which I did my best to answer. My hon. Friend said he was satisfied with the answer, but since then the hon. Member for West Lothian has done nothing but read out great chunks of the 1939 Act, which does not seem to be relevant to the Bill or to his amendment.

Mr. McNamara: Before my hon Friend returns to the 1939 Act, could I give him a scenario?

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I think that I will intervene, to say that we should stick to this measure. We are not debating the 1939 Act at all.

Mr. McNamara: I assure you, Mr. Weatherill, that I had no intention of debating the 1939 Act. I wanted to deal with the question of a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies or a body incorporated under the law. Legally, such a person, or body, could tranship out of the country a sum of money to a Liechtenstein company, which could use the money to buy goods in the United Kingdom. The goods could be sold to another Liechtenstein company, which takes a booking on a British ship, which takes the goods to somewhere in the Gulf, where they are transhipped to a Liberian ship. Every one of those actions would be legal. It would be difficult to say that there was anything illegal. The profits accrue. They go from one Liechtenstein company to another. My hon. Friend will recall that there are more companies in Liechtenstein than citizens. Then the money is transhipped back to the United Kingdom. Everything has been done legally and with a complete evasion of sanctions.

Mr. Dalyell: This is precisely the kind of difficulty. Although I would have preferred to substitute a more likely company than a Liechtenstein company, this is a real scenario. My hon. Friend took it as an example, but it is a good example of the morass we sink into once we go down a road like this. The Minister of State said that we should not be discussing the 1939 Act. We are dealing here with precedental law—[Interruption.] If I am tempted, I shall go in detail into the British Nationality Act 1948, which is the subject of line 11, page 2, of the Bill.
Once one gets involved in such complex legislation without having properly thought it out, once one starts passing laws because of great urgency, one gets into all sorts of unsuspected difficulties. Properly digested legislation has to be better throughout. This Bill is spatchcocked together with the greatest of haste to meet what the Government think is a purely temporary situation. I do not think that it will be so temporary. If we do this, the hostages will be there for half a lifetime. The iniquity of it all is that it does not have a chance of succeeding in attaining its objective. It is the un-workability and unreality of it all that strikes one.
While I give the Government Back Benchers credit for their good nature there is a deeply serious point here. We are not sent to the House of Commons to assent to legislation which, in our heart of hearts, we know will not work. When I say "we", I am arrogant enough to suggest that it includes not only the Labour Benches but a substantial number of Government supporters and, dare I say it, I suspect, a great many members of the Government Front Bench.
At least one thing has been learnt from the whole devolution saga and the attempt to reform the Lords. I sat through many hours as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman when he was trying to bring in Lords reform. He and the noble Lord the present Foreign Secretary and one or two others, thought that they had a watertight Bill.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He may be right in what he says, but it is a Third


Reading point that has nothing to do with territorial waters.

Mr. Dalyell: It is connected with the intervention made by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead. I shall not abuse the Chair over this matter, but it has to be brought home that deep feelings exist. One gets into precisely this type of problem when people bring forward

Division No. 301]
AYES
[4.46 am


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dalyell, Tam
Soley, Clive
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Welsh, Michael
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Haynes, Frank






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawksley, Warren
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ancram, Michael
Heddle, John
Renton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Henderson, Barry
Rhodes James, Robert


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hill, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Banks, Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hooson, Tom
Ridsdale, Julian


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Hon Douglas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Blackburn, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Mrs Jill
Silvester, Fred


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Bright, Graham
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Brotherton, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas
Sproat, lain


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


Buck, Antony
Major, John
Stainton, Keith


Budgen, Nick
Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin


Clegg, Sir Walter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cockeram, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Colvin, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cope, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Crouch, David
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Dover, Denshore
Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Monro, Hector
Thorne, Neil (liford South)


Durant, Tony
Montgomery, Fergus
Trippier, David


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Elliott, Sir William
Myles, David
Wakeham, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Newton, Tony
Ward, John


Freud, Clement
Normanton, Tom
Watson, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wheeler, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Whitney, Raymond


Gorst, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Gow, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Griffiths. Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, John (Oxford)



Gummer, John Selwyn
Percival, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Hannam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

measures in which they do not really believe for purely short-term reasons. I shall not try your patience further, Mr. Weatherill. Unless the Minister of State wishes to reply, I propose to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 150.

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 302]
AYES
[4.57 am


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dalyell, Tam
Soley, Clive
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Welsh, Michael
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawksley, Warren
Pees-Davies, W. R.


Ancram, Michael
Heddle, John
Benton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Henderson, Barry
Rhodes James, Robert


Atkins Robert (Preston North)
Hill, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Banks, Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hooson, Tom
Ridsdale, Julian


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Hon Douglas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Blackburn, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Mrs Jill
Silvester, Fred


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Bright, Graham
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Brotherton, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas
Sproat, lain


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


Buck, Antony
Major, John
Stainton, Keith


Budgen, Nick
Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin


Clegg, Sir Walter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cockeram, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Colvin, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cope, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Crouch, David
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Dover, Denshore
Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Monro, Hector
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Durant, Tony
Montgomery, Fergus
Trippier, David


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Elliott, Sir William
Myles, David
Wakeham, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Newton, Tony
Ward, John


Freud, Clement
Normanton, Tom
Watson, John


Garel-Jones Tristan
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wheeler, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Whitney, Raymond


Gorst, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Gow, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, John (Oxford)



Gummer, John Selwyn
Percival, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Hannam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
' (6) No Order in Council shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 150.

No. 26, in page 2, line 26, leave out ' twenty-eight ' and insert ' twenty-one '.

No. 27, in page 2, line 33, leave out ' four ' and insert ' five '.

Mr. Rowlands: This amendment is an important one and it is rather sad that we reach it at this hour of the morning. It is sad because it was not the Opposition who forced upon the House the nonsense of trying to carry through all the stages


of this Bill at one go. Therefore, we have every right to suggest that it is sad that an amendment of the character and importance of amendment No. 38 should be reached at such a time.
Nevertheless, we must seek to do justice to the amendment, which is signed not only by my right hon. Friends and myself but also by two Conservative Members. I am sure that the amendment will have the sympathy of many hon. Members.

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order Mr. Weatherill. I wonder whether you would advise me whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) to move amendment No. 38, which is first in this group of amendments. I do not see his name on the Amendment Paper.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has been in the House long enough to know that it is in order for any hon. Member to move an amendment. This is an official Opposition amendment, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil is an official Opposition spokesman.

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The hon. Member said that his name appeared in support of the amendment. It does not. I have been in this House long enough to know that that is a deception of the House.

The Chairman: I did not hear the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) say that his name was on the amendment. I heard him say that he was moving the amendment. That is good enough for me.

Mr. Rowlands: I am moving the amendment. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends support it, as do one or two Government Members. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is one such Member. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the firmest possible parliamentary control over the orders that might be made under the Bill. It will ensure that orders are subject to affirmative resolution. Orders cannot be enforced unless and until the House approves them.
There are precedents for such parliamentary control, although I am sure that the Minister will use the Rhodesia legislation

as a comparison. I have no doubt that section 2(5) of that legislation will be quoted.
Yesterday, the Minister of State objected strongly to parallels being made between the Rhodesia provisions and the provisions in the Bill. He said:
Another point that I am sure will arise in the debate—it inspires a good deal of the opposition to the Bill—is the parallel with Rhodesia…I would try to argue, not perhaps with an enormous hope of success, that the position is entirely different. The problem is different, the objective is different. We are not attempting in the Bill, or in any orders made under the Bill, to change a regime.
I accept that. Then, curiously, he said:
We are attempting to bring a regime back to some legality from the past.
I thought that that was also what the Rhodesia provisions aimed to do. I am sure that the Minister did not mean to echo the 1965 arguments.

Mr. Hurd: The word "not" was omitted from Hansard.

Mr. Rowlands: I am glad to hear that the Minister is consistent. I failed to understand how the second quoted sentence meant anything. However, the Minister argued that the Rhodesia provisions were not comparable in any shape or form. The Minister said:
We are not claiming to seal frontiers or to bring anyone to their knees. We are not talking in terms of weeks or months.
What time scale are we discussing? That is relevant to parliamentary control over the order. An affirmative procedure was built into the Rhodesia legislation. Section 2 of the Act required renewal on an annual basis. As the Minister who holds the world record for moving sanctions provisions—I moved five—I know that it was an important check when we had to come to the House for reaffirmation of powers under that Act on an annual basis. The matter is important Either the Government are claiming that these orders are comparable with the orders which stemmed from an earlier piece of sanctions legislation, namely, the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, and are claiming a precedent under that Act, or, as the Minister spent some considerable time in saying yesterday, they are entirely different. He said:
the position is entirely different. The problem is different, the objective is different."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 917–18.]


In that sense we all agree with him. There is a strong case for considering a different procedure to control, supervise, scrutinise or improve orders that might stem from the Bill.
5.15 am
Orders under the Bill will affect negotiations on contracts at a crucial moment in time. If I were negotiating a contract in Iran which might be subject to an order, I should want to know whether that order would be in force. The Government may argue that the order, when it is laid and is in force, has been known about from day one. But there are 28 days in which the House would have the opportunity to debate whether it should be approved, renewed or continued. It would be better for the Government to come to the House with an order and to seek the clear approval of the House before proceeding. If they do not do so, there will be some considerable doubt about whether, at the end of 28 days, the order will be renewed and retained or whether the Government will uphold it. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he discussed an earlier amendment. He said that if we carried the earlier amendment there would be no need for this amendment. We did not carry the earlier amendment, so there is an even greater need for this amendment.
There is also a need for the amendment because we have no clear indication of the time scale, scope or nature of the orders that we are discussing. That goes back to an earlier but equally relevant debate and to the issues raised in the amendment. We do not know what sort of orders the Government intend to introduce. During the debate we tried to elicit what line the Government will take at the meeting of Foreign Ministers this weekend, so that we have some view of the range of sanctions that the Government might introduce in the immediate future. We received no real answer to that. We had an interesting diplomatic discussion about how everybody would take stock of the position, count the cost and consider the issues, starting from the minutes of the last meeting. We received no indication from the Minister about which sanctions would be used in the near future. Neither did we receive any indication of the time scales.
The Minister made a most amazing comment in yesterday's debate. I had hoped that he would intervene now to clarify the matter, but unfortunately he has left the Chamber. In yesterday's debate he said:
We are not claiming to seal frontiers or to bring anyone to their knees. We are not talking in terms of weeks or months.
What in the name of heaven are we talking about—years?

Mr. Rhodes James: We are talking about amendment No. 38.

Mr. Rowlands: We are talking about amendment No. 38. The hon. Gentleman interrupted from a sedentary position, which is perfectly reasonable, but I shall happily give way to him if he wishes. Amendment No. 38 discusses what form of parliamentary control should be placed upon the orders which will be brought forward under the Bill. Surely, very relevant is the length of time for which those orders will survive. If it will be a month, days, weeks, hours or whatever the case may be, one can look at the nature of the parliamentary control, but, if we are told that it is neither weeks nor months, what time scale are we talking about?

Mr. Dalyell: I quote from the bottom of column 917, where the Minister of State said:
We are not attempting in the Bill, or in any orders made under the Bill, to change a regime. We are attempting to bring a regime back to some legality from the past We are not claiming to seal frontiers or to bring anyone to their knees. We are not talking in terms of weeks or months.
That is the point of my intervention. Foolishly, from my point of view, from a sedentary position I asked "What on earth are we talking about?" The Minister heard very well what the intervention was. I should have interrupted him, but he then sped on to:
I hope that the House will not find in our mouths the kind of overblown rhetoric that was familiar, at any rate, in the initial years, of sanctions against Rhodesia.
But the question was put to him because at the time it seemed passing strange that he should use that phrase.

Mr. Rowlands: If my hon. Friend had carried on quoting that relevant paragraph in column 918, he would have come to the next sentence, which says:
The objective is more modest.
What is the modest nature of the orders? I do not quite understand what "modest" means in that context. If it is extremely modest, one could possibly accept a looser form of parliamentary control over such orders. But the Minister did not amplify the modesty of the objective. He said:
In Iran, we are faced with a thoroughly confused and shifting political situation, with different groups jostling for power and now one. now another, appearing to have its nose in front.
We are almost back to the Olympic Games. He added:
I do not think it would be wise in that situation for anyone, not even the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), to be dogmatic either way in advance about the effects of the kind of measures that might be taken under the Bill."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 917–18.]
What does that mean? What is the point and purpose of any such order? If we are not talking about its effect in weeks or months, what time scale are we talking about? We are talking about a "modest" objective. The objective is anything but modest, if it is aimed and designed to help to release the American hostages. That is not a modest objective. It is a fundamental and vitally important objective. The restoration of international law and the re-establishment of the basic principles on which international relationships have been governed are anything but modest.
However, if the Minister is saying—and it appears very much so from that paragraph—that the orders will have almost no consequence with regard to the internal turmoil of Iran, many hon. Members may accept that assessment. What are the Government trying to do in any order which they might bring forward? What time scale do they envisage for the orders being in force? If they are to be longer than a week or a month, should not we be certain that the orders are cleared by the House before they come into force and that a full affirmative parliamentary process is agreed to, as our amendment suggests?
By making such an order, which has to be renewed after 28 days, we may

interrupt important negotiations and interrupt discussions on a specific contract. There will not be the clear and unequivocal understanding and knowledge that it will be the ultimate decision of the Government. The order will be reaffirmed by the House of Commons and continued after 28 days. Would it not be better for such orders, which could have an effect on jobs and on the future of certain firms and companies, to be brought before the House of Commons and given approval? Companies would then know that they should not pursue certain contracts because of the clear and unequivocal decision of this place—namely, that such orders should be in force until the Act provides for their withdrawal or revocation.

Mr. Dalyell: I make no complaint that the amendments were not selected, but there is a case for a shorter period than 28 days—for example, 21 days or even 14. Industry must know where it is. Industrial decisions are made rapidly. Against that background, 28 days is not all that satisfactory.

Mr. Rowlands: I gather that the amendments to which my hon. Friend refers are linked with this amendment. I think it would be in order, Mr. Weatherill, for discussion to take place on the shorter periods proposed in those amendments.
The Committee is owed an explanation by the Minister. How does he see the application of individual orders? How will they have an effect on the objective of the Bill and the orders generally—namely, to obtain the release of the American diplomatic hostages? We certainly need an explanation of the nonsensical sentence uttered by the Minister yesterday to the effect that the Government were not talking in terms of weeks or months. What are we talking about? We shall have to decide whether to press the amendment when we have heard the Minister's explanation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am not surprised that the amendment attracted all-party support. It appears to be to the advantage of the Government as well as meeting all points of view that it should be made.
I begin with a proposition that I do not think can be disputed—namely, that any


provision that is put into a Bill to provide for parliamentary control must make the assumption that such control can be exercised in such a manner as to annul or to invalidate the order. It would be an absurdity and an insult to the House of Commons to justify a provision upon the basis that this place would never throw an order out. I therefore assume that the Government, in drafting the provision, entertained the possibility that there could be circumstances, and were intending to provide for circumstances, in which the will of the House of Commons would be contrary to the decision of the Government expressed in the order.
On that assumption. I should like the Government to contemplate the difficulties which would arise given the present form of the clause. A sanctions measure has been agreed upon by all the parties. They have also agreed upon a date for that measure to come into force. As the Bill stands, an Order in Council is made and the sanction is imposed. It will come into operation, with all the dislocation that that involves, from the moment that the order is made. Ex hypothesi it will also come into operation in all the States that agree to impose identical and simultaneous sanctions.
5.30 am
Let us suppose that within the 28-day period, and after sanctions have been in operation for three or more weeks, the House of Commons—in its wisdom or otherwise—refuses to approve the order. I think that I carried the Minister with me when I said that we must envisage that eventuality when we legislate. It is difficult to exaggerate the embarrassment and confusion that would arise. Her Majesty's Government would have failed to go along with an agreement. The order would lose its effect. As a result, if the House failed to approve the order, the measures would cease to have effect on that day, despite the fact that they had been in force for two, three or more weeks. Intolerable confusion, unfairness and embarrassment would follow. The Government cannot want that to occur. If they do, they must have strong reasons for providing for that possibility.
I am sure that the Minister will not argue that because those Orders in Council would be the expression of an international

agreement the House would not have the power to exercise the facility provided by the clause. We have met that argument before. Within the past decade, the House has been informed that it could not alter a certain Bill because it implemented a treaty to which this country had already adhered: It was therefore impossible to make any appreciable amendments to the Bill. I should be surprised if the Minister sought that mode of escape. I should also be surprised if he argued that the House could not invalidate an order because that would break an international commitment.
So manifest is the preferability of the procedures suggested in the amendment—that sanctions should come into force only when they have the assent of Parliament—that one searches for the nature of any countervailing grounds. I have hit on two possible grounds. It is possible that these sanctions are expected to be affected simultaneously by all the countries involved. In that case, it would be convenient if the date of operation were in the hands of the Executive. No doubt the date of operation would be in the hands of the Executives of the other countries concerned.
The other possibility is that the Government think that these sanctions should come into effect suddenly, like a thunderbolt. Perhaps they think that they should be put into effect without any warning and without a draft of the new sanction and its terms being published. Perhaps they think that it should have the force of law as soon as it appears. Is that consonant with the theory behind the Bill? The Bill seeks to produce gradual pressure. At each stage it seeks to provide a pause for reflection and warning. Pressure is to be applied progressively. I cannot understand why it should be argued that the measures cannot be disclosed in a draft before they come into effect. In any case, even if these two qualities of instantaneity and simultaneity were desired, at any rate one of them, simultaneous operation, could perfectly well be achieved under the proposal in the amendment, since the date of operation could itself be written into the Order in Council, that date being a date later than that at which the Government would bring the draft before the House for the House to give it its approval.
I can only conclude, therefore, that the


Government have concealed from us until this late stage of the Committee their intention to accept the amendment that that this was to arrive a little later than the dawn as a happy novelty in our proceedings—the Government not merely seeing the light in a metaphorical as well as a literal sense but having reserved to this late stage something to give pleasure to the Committee, some reward for the labours which have been devoted not only to the study of the Bill but to its debate during these proceedings.
I hope that that is to prove the explanation, and not a more sinister possibility which occurred to me, though only to be dismissed: That, as on a previous occasion of unhappy memory, the Government were determined that there should not be a Report stage and, therefore, ineluctable though the arguments are for this amendment, were nevertheless determined not to accept the amendment.
I have endeavoured to protect, to hedge, to fence the arguments in favour of the amendment on every side. So I commend it to the Government, fenced as it now is with the triplex of irrefutable argument.

Mr. Parkinson: First, I welcome the engaging streak of optimism which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just shown. He rehearsed the arguments extremely well. He anticipated a number of the arguments that I shall be using. But I am sorry to have to say that he drew the wrong conclusion and that he found his own arguments more compelling than I did.
I should like to explain briefly the Government's reasoning in choosing this unusual procedure. The Government were faced with a dilemma. We wish to give the House the optimum control and to give Parliament the optimum opportunity to express its views and to take decisions about orders laid before it under both Acts. We therefore considered providing for the affirmative resolution procedure. It would have been easier. I suggest that we would have denied even the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) the opportunity to make one of his speeches had we included the affirmative resolution procedure in the Bill. It would have made the passage of the Bill easier.
However, that procedure has a big disadvantage attached to it—and the right hon. Gentleman knows what it is. It is that it takes anything from six to eight weeks after preparing a draft to get the order through, and the delay can be prolonged when Parliament is not sitting. So there were difficulties in that procedure, because, against our wish to give Parliament the optimum say, we were faced with a number of other problems.
This is an enabling measure. As we have said repeatedly, it is important, and the Government are committed to acting in concert with their partners in the EEC and putting themselves in a position to take decisions by 17 May—this Saturday.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I take it that the period of 28 days is not 28 parliamentary days but is 28 calendar days. The Minister is therefore in difficulty with his own argument unless the House of Commons is not to go into recess for more than a month during the period of operation of the Bill or unless he is prepared to envisage the recall of Parliament during the recess for the purpose of giving the House the opportunity within the 28 days to annul the order.

Mr. Parkinson: As I understand it, and as the Bill states,
in calculating the period aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
If the Government were faced with the necessity of making an order when the House was not in session during a recess, the 28 days would start to run when the sitting resumed, as I understand it. But it would mean that the Government could take action quickly to meet their commitments. As I have repeatedly said, we are committed to sending the Foreign Secretary to the meeting on Saturday, armed with the powers under this enabling measure and the 1939 Act, with the ability to take decisions to act in concert with our allies.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Parkinson: If I may develop my argument a little further, I shall give way.
We believe that our ability to meet that commitment would be damaged by using the normal affirmative resolution procedure. We do not think that we


would be in a position to meet our commitment.
Secondly, there are impracticalities the other way from using the affirmative resolution procedure in an instance such as this. I draw a parallel. Announcing that in six to eight weeks the duty on whisky was going to increase would ensure that there was a tremendous run on sales of whisky in that period. That is why, under the excise duties provisions, we are able to make announcements and to impose them very quickly to prevent such a run.
For instance, if we announced our intention to ban the supply of certain goods in quantity to Iran some six or eight weeks hence, the opportunities for pushing out large quantities of those goods, thereby undermining the purpose of the order, would be plentiful.
Therefore, the Government have this dilemma. They must be able to make the decisions that they announce work. They must be able to make sanctions stick. The whole idea of imposing an order would be undermined by giving people notice that in six to eight weeks they would not be able to do something that the Government decided was undesirable at the time they decided to lay the order.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister tell us what the six to eight weeks is about? Can he tell us why, from the time an order is laid before Parliament, it would take six to eight weeks?

Mr. Parkinson: I understand that is the normal time that it takes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is undermining his own argument. If he carries on on that basis, he will eventually prove that the affirmative resolution procedure offers less help to Parliament than what we are suggesting.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Parkinson: Not at the moment.
Therefore, the Government were faced with this dilemma. We wish to give Parliament the optimum say, but, under an enabling measure, we wish to be able to take swift action to prevent the export of a particular product and to make sanctions stick if we believe that a ban

should be placed on that product's export. That is how the procedure envisaged in the Bill came to be adopted. It is a compromise. The order takes effect immediately it is laid. Then the House has 28 days during which it can consider the matter. At the end of that time, if it is not approved by affirmative resolution, the order lapses.
5.45 am
The arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South were fair. He said that uncertainty would be created and that we must work on the principle that Parliament can reject any order. I suggest that it is equally damaging to announce that there is a hole and that the Government intend to plug it but that they will not do so for six to eight weeks—the time that is normally taken between the drafting and laying of an order—

Mr. Rowlands: It takes only 28 days.

Mr. Parkinson: If it takes only 28 days, why is the hon. Member putting the Government in the position during the parliamentary recess of not being able to act where they see a blatant abuse or an undermining of their own policy of sanctions? I remind the Committee that the principle of the Bill was approved by the House yesterday.
The Government have the difficulty of reconciling the need to give Parliament a say with the need to take effective action promptly. That is why we decided on the compromise—an affirmative resolution procedure with the House having 28 days, at the end of which the order would lapse if it had not been approved.
The Government must not work on the principle that they will always have a majority. They must assume that there will be contentious orders, with which people in their own ranks do not agree. Perhaps that will be a discipline on the Government not to take risks and lay orders which might not be carried. The Chief Whip and the party managers would take great care not to lay orders unless they were reasonably confident that they could carry them through the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend answer two questions? If the Government's ability to move is disciplined by the Chief Whip and the party managers' awareness of tides of opinion within the party, how can we act in


concert with our allies? Surely, the whole idea is simultaneity with our allies. How can they work out how the party will feel about a particular order?

Mr. Parkinson: They will have to see what the Government can deliver. When the Government agree to do something, they should take account of what they can do. It is up to our Government to keep a pledge once they have made it.
I shall deal in detail with the six to eight-week period. That includes time for printing, arranging two debates and waiting for the monthly Privy Council meeting. The 28-day period runs from making the Order in Council, and there is no wait for either printing or the Privy Council meeting. This procedure could be speeded up, and also it is available to the Government in a parliamentary recess.
This is a matter to which the Government have given considerable thought. They realised that this debate was likely to happen if we had a procedure other than that involving affirmative resolution. We concluded that it was absolutely vital for the Government to have this power. That is why we have adopted a compromise procedure. I hope that the Committee will approve it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened to the Minister with great care. What he has said so far deals with the normal procedure on Government business, but surely he should relate these provisions to the question of why the Bill is necessary. I thought that the Bill's purpose was to facilitate the release of the hostages. I am a little puzzled why he is concerned about the inhibitions on the Government in taking action in a parliamentary recess of a prolonged character.
We all know that we shall have a recess fairly soon, namely, at Whitsun. But the next recess—in fact, it is the only major recess—is the Summer Recess. There is half of May, the whole of June and the whole of July before we reach that point. If we assume that the House will rise not later than the glorious twelfth of August, that will give us three full calendar months during which time the Government and their allies will have to make up their minds what sanctions are to be applied. If major sanctions orders are to be laid after 12 August, that means

a further three months' incarceration for the hostages.
If there is no movement at all in three months towards the release of the hostages, the whole of the strategy of the Government and their allies will be in total ruins. We would then be dealing not with the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill but with something that would cover a much longer period of time. The Minister appears to disagree, but he must address himself to how the Bill will work. If the Bill shows no signs of working and major issues affecting sanctions crop up in three months' time, the Government will find themselves in serious difficulty. The Minister should accept the amendment because action is bound to be taken, if it is to be taken at all, within the next three months.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister would be wise to accept the amendment, although I understand the reasons which he advanced, particularly the one relating to the recess. If he were to accept the amendment, he would avoid possible embarrassment to the Government internationally and in their relationships with British industrialists and exporters.
God forbid that we shall have to apply this machinery. I am supporting it in the belief that we will not have to do so. But, if it should come to that, I am convinced that there will be cases when it will be difficult for Government supporters to go along with the detail of particular orders. As the future unfolds, the Government should recognise that there may be difficulties in regard to certain sanctions orders. Therefore, they should ensure that they can obtain the order if they wish to go ahead and lay a draft. That would ensure parliamentary control, and that is something I and many others have often argued for. Above all, it would ensure certainty in the minds of our business men and industrialists, who surely are entitled to some certainty.
I end with one question to my hon. Friend. Can he be sure that the procedures of the American Congress are such that it will allow its Administration in all circumstances to bring in sanctions in a manner which would be concerted with others, on the same time scale in particular ways? I suspect that Congress, in some matters at least, would be much more difficult than we would.

Mr. Dalyell: I am inclined to think that this attitude was struck by the Minister first of all out of good motives, good faith and concern for the proper working of the House of Commons. I think that he meant what he said about optimum control being given to the House. On the other hand, there are difficulties. I am still not clear about the six to eight weeks necessary to get the draft through. I repeat that question. In the same breath, I must say something to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who has made a valuable contribution over the last 12 hours. He said it candidly and I respect him for it, but one shudders when one hears serious hon. Members saying that, of course, they are voting for something in the hope and belief that it will never be used. That is the kind of thing that leads us into very great difficulty.

Mr. Brotherton: That is the case with the death penalty.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not sure that the analogy is with the death penalty. This is what leads us into the greatest difficulty and I believe that we are at the beginning, not the end, of a road of many tears.
We come back to the question of acting in concert with other countries. I hope that the questions posed about lines 17 and 18 will be answered. What did the Minister of State mean by his phrase:
We are not talking in terms of weeks or months."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 918.]
I see him nodding. I am sure that he will do me the courtesy of answering that point.

Mr. Brotherton: The most important thing which has to be emphasised today is our acting in concert, acting together. In 1956, 24 years ago, the United States of America failed to support this country when we went into Suez. That was the last most important act of Empire. What we must not fail to do is to support the United States. When the United States says that it believes we should impose sanctions on these people in Iran, this must be the most important thing we can do.
It is all very well for the people of Europe to say that they are members of NATO and of the Atlantic Alliance. The most important thing is that we are members

of the Western Alliance. We must defend ourselves against the most important threat of the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan and wherever else it may be. We must support the Bill because we must defend the West against Russia.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister of State owes the Committee a further explanation in respect of some of his remarks about this part of the Bill. His speech was a salutary lesson for those of us who tried to "second-guess" the arguments that would be produced. I must confess I never thought he would come forward with the argument that it would take six to eight weeks to introduce an order and, consequently, it is for that reason that he cannot accept our amendment. He says that this is the normal process. The Committee is debating a Bill which was introduced last Thursday and is expected to go through all its processes in one sitting. That is most abnormal behaviour. If the Government have the conviction and determination, the House of Commons is capable of doing certain things. If the Government wish to introduce an order, lay a draft and call a special meeting of the Privy Council to approve an order—even going through the Statutory Instruments Committee and all the rest—they can do this as quickly as they wish.
6 am
Speed does not invalidate the point we make. The Minister tended to imply that this would negate the whole idea behind our amendment. That is nonsense. We argue that the House has the right to give its approval before an order comes into effect. The House can do so promptly. This is shown by the speed with which it has been asked to deal with the Bill. There is also the example of past orders and enabling Bills. Only last year, two Bills on Rhodesia came before the House on which hon. Members were asked to act as speedily as possible. The argument about six to eight weeks is not convincing. If the Government wish to bring in an order swiftly, procedures are available, as well as those incorporated in the Bill.
The second issue relates to what happens if the House is in a long recess. An important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Are the Government contemplating the possibility that major


orders under the Bill will have to be introduced between August and October as a means of applying pressure on Iran to release the hostages? We have asked for an explanation of the Minister of State's remark that
We are not talking in terms of weeks or months."—[Official Report, 12 May, 1980; Vol. 984, c. 918.]
What time scale are we talking about? What message did the hon. Gentleman mean to give to the House when he made that statement?

Mr. Hurd: It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal with this legitimate point on the new clauses which deal with the whole question of termination of time scale.

Mr. Rowlands: We shall look forward to that explanation. It has relevance to the points we are making about the handling of the orders and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny over them. It would be improper if an order, which could affect employment in Coventry and have an impact on vital contracts, both future and present, given the definition of renewal and extension of contracts provided by the Minister, was introduced in the recess and remained in force for two or three months before Parliament

Division No. 303]
AYES
[6.05 am


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive
Mr. Terry Davis and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Welsh, Michael
Mr. Kevin McNamara.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John
Hill, James


Ancram, Michael
Crouch, David
Hooson, Tom


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Banks, Robert
Dover, Denshore
Johnston. Russell (Inverness)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bevan, David Gilroy
Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman. Nigel
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Braine, Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair
Major, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mather, Carol


Buck, Antony
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Cockeram, Eric
Heddle, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Colvin, Michael
Henderson, Barry
Moate, Roger

debated it. That is a matter of considerable concern. If such a situation arose, there is another procedure available—the recall of Parliament.

Given the nature and importance of some of the orders that may be introduced, especially if the American hostages are still in detention in August, September and October, there may certainly be a need for Parliament to be recalled to debate further actions by the Government and their European partners at the request or behest—I do not wish to become involved in last night's discussion about those two words—of the United States Government. We feel that we must press the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I must respond to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). There has been an implication that some hon. Members, in our remarks, are anti-American—

The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not pursue that point. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), who spoke for only a minute, was out of order.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 139.

Monro, Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stradling Thomas, J.


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman


Murphy, Christopher
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Myles, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Thompson, Donald


Needham, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Nelson, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Shersby, Michael
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Fred
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Whitney, Raymond


Parris, Matthew
Sproat, lain
Wickenden, Keith


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stainton, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor



Rathbone, Tim
Steen, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stevens, Martin
Mr. John MacGregor and


Renton, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
M r. John Wakeham.


Rhodes James, Robert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto,

Division No. 304]
AYES
[6.15 am


Alexander, Richard
Heddle, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ancram, Michael
Henderson, Barry
Renton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Banks, Robert
Hooson, Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Best, Keith
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Blackburn, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shersby, Michael


Bright, Graham
Latham, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Brinton, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Brotherton, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Buck, Antony
Lyell, Nicholas
Sproat, lain


Budgen, Nick
MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Major, John
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Cope, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Crouch, David
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Dover, Denshore
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Donald


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Durant, Tony
Monro, Hector
Trippier, David


Dykes, Hugh
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Waddington, David


Elliott, Sir William
Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Myles, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Forman, Nigel
Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd ft Stev'nage)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Normanton, Tom
Wheeler, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Onslow, Cranley
Whitney, Raymond


Gorst, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wickenden, Keith


Gow, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Parkinson, Cecil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Parris, Matthew



Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, John (Oxford)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Hannam, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Hawksley, Warren
Rathbone, Tim

forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 4.

NOES


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Welsh, Michael
Mr. Kevin McNamara and




Mr. Clive Soley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

AMNESTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENDERS

After the detained members of the embassy of the United States of America have been freed no proceedings shall be instituted in any court of law in any part of the United Kingdom in respect of a breach of an Order in Council under section 1 of this Act.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss new clause 5—Amnesty for contravention of this Act:
' No power of amnesty derives in this Act for contravention of any of the provisions of this Act.'.

Mr. Dalyell: New clause 1 arises directly out of the business the other night. It does not need a soothsayer to predict that the measure will soon come to considerable grief. There is no doubt that some kind of amnesty legislation will be needed.
Not entirely in a sarcastic vein did I suggest to the Leader of the House during business questions that it might be for the convenience of the House if a new amnesty clause were introduced at this stage rather than detain the House later on the amnesty issue. Much has been said about the way that the measure will not work. Amnesty will be needed sooner rather than later. Many of the arguments have been rehearsed. I do not intend to detain the Committee further.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall speak about new clause 5. We have had a number of interesting debates. It would be improper and out of order to debate any of the amendments again. However, it is proper and in order to refer to the

manner and substance of the Government's response to some of the points.
We are told that banks and financial institutions are not included in the Bill because they operate within guidelines and, by implication, they can be trusted to continue to co-operate in the Government's aims and objectives. Taken at its face value, the Bill implies that private industry and commerce apparently cannot be trusted to co-operate with the Government and will always take the opportunity to make a fast buck unless there are legislative constraints. Recent experience of Rhodesia sanctions shows that even when statutory constraints operate, private gain often takes precedence over public will.
Perhaps the Bill is nothing more than a charade and a public relations exercise to allow the Foreign Secretary to wave a little piece of paper on Saturday in Naples—a piece of paper which will have as much value as that waved by Chamberlain on his return from Munich. That is not the face presented by Ministers. Amendments have been resisted on the grounds that they would lessen the effectiveness of the Bill and undermine its purposes or that they are contrary to the Government's resolve. Ministers have not always been convincing, but they have shown that they mean business.
6.30 am
It is clear that the Government's intentions are undermined by clause 2(4), which states:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision in relation to contracts of any description mentioned in section 1 (1) as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient in connection with the expiration of section 1; and an Order in Council under this subsection may make or authorise the making of such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be expedient for the purposes of the Order.
The negating of the Government's intention is contained in that subsection, which contains the seeds of the Government's destruction. The subsection would give the Government the power to wipe the slate clean and to provide an amnesty for any contravention of the provisions of the Bill. If the phrase "wiping the slate clean" has a familiar ring to it, it is hardly surprising, because we heard


those words only last week. The precedent is in the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order 1980, which we debated last Wednesday.
Other precedents arise out of our experience of sanctions against Rhodesia. Regrettably, the absence of the provision for immunity from prosecution does not guarantee that prosecution will follow any contravention of the law. Experience teaches us that there are ways to avoid prosecution. For example, a company could make certain that all its transactions were carried out by the oldest member of the company—the oldest director or the oldest employee—who could retire as soon as the transactions were discovered. Indeed, the Attorney-General put forward as one of the reasons why the Government should not proceed with a prosecution against the oil companies the fact that some of the personnel had retired.
Another way is to make the transactions as large and as complex as possible and to manufacture a labyrinth of paperwork that would work the Director of Public Prosecutions to death while he tried to unravel it. There are hundreds of ways in which those who wish to avoid the penalty of breaking the law can do so, whatever the penalties might be—and we have no idea about that at present. I am certain that many companies are setting their best brains to work to find ways to avoid prosecution and to evade the law. The whiz kids will labour away.
There can be no greater incentive to those who seek to set to one side the Government's good intentions and to break the law than the knowledge that, without recourse to an Act of Parliament the Government can provide immunity from prosecution or penalty under an Iran sanctions and amnesty order, which would be readily available under clause 2(4).
The Government have accepted the principle that, in certain conditions of international affairs, effective use of sanctions as a weapon is justified. The Government have recognised that constraints on the activities of industry, commerce, and even banking and financial institutions are legitimate in pursuit of foreign policy. The credibility of such policies has been put at serious risk already by the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions)

(Amnesty) Order 1980. It is not merely a question of fair treatment between those that are discovered and prosecuted and those that are not. It is a matter of how serious are the Government in their intentions. If we seek to carry any credibility in international affairs, we cannot repeat too often the post-Rhodesia sanctions experiences.
If, at the end of the day, it is decided that immunity from prosecution under the provisions of the Bill is desirable, and if that is the conclusion of the Government, such an action should be explained and defended in an open manner by primary legislation. These matters cannot be properly debated, properly approved or properly explained in a limited debate when an order is laid before the House.
I believe that sanctions should not be imposed without serious consideration of the repercussions of failure or the repercussions of failure to deal with those who contravene sanctions. We must bear in mind all the time that the whole purpose behind the Bill is supposed to be to create a climate in Iran which will help to produce an early release of the American hostages. That is what it is supposed to be all about. I was seriously worried when, in reply to an earlier debate, the Minister of State spoke of the possibility—he certainly implied the possibility—that sanctions orders might be laid during the period of a long recess of the House.
That would mean that three months from now we would still be in the process of trying to get through the House of Commons—or the Government would be seriously trying to bring into being—a series of sanctions which would help to release the American hostages. If they are still incarcerated in three months' time and if we have not created that climate or produced the machinery which is supposed to produce that climate, we shall be in an altogether different set of circumstances. If sanctions are to be effective, they must be short, sharp and applied quickly. If the matter is simply delayed, I believe that it will do nothing whatever to bring about the climate in Iran which the Government hope to bring about.
I accept that the Government are faced with the problems—as we all are—of how they can try effectively to get the hostages freed. I do not for one moment blame the Government for coming forward with


sanctions legislation if that is thought to be helpful.
There is another aspect of the legislation. It is said that it is necessary to have it in order to demonstrate our solidarity with the American President and that only by such a demonstration of solidarity can we have some influence over future events. That poses a serious danger, because if the legislation fails and the policy of sanctions in concert with a number of nations fails we may find ourselves in a war situation. We are playing for very high stakes indeed.
I believe that the Government must put forward the case that they are serious in their intentions. They have certainly sought to do that. They may believe that this is an exercise which will work, and they may say "We intend to be effective and firm", yet buried within the Bill is yet another example of saying "Even if you are caught, you do not need to worry." At one stage during our discussions the Minister for Trade said that a nod was as good as a wink to a blind horse. We ought not to be saying to companies or individuals "Do not worry about it, because at the end of the day it means nothing and you will get off scot-free."
If the Government are serious in their intent to make the policy effective and to make the legislation work, it is necessary to accept the new clause, which simply states:
No power of amnesty derives in this Act for contravention of any of the provisions of this Act.
In other words, I believe that the Government ought to come clean and bring forward separate legislation before there is any amnesty for any breaches or contraventions of this legislation, should it become an Act.

Mr. Hurd: The two new clauses deal with ways of bringing the Bill, when enacted, and any measures under it to an end. The Bill is explicitly linked with the detention of the hostages, and it follows that when the hostages are released an order will be made appointing a day for the Act to expire under clause 2(3).
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) chided me for saying yesterday that I hoped that we would not

think in terms of weeks rather than months. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would catch the point. That phrase was used in haste on an earlier occasion and was regretted at leisure. Everybody hopes that the hostages will be released quickly—indeed, at once. Surely, we must learn from experience, and experience suggests that it is rash to make prophecies about time. Therefore, there are no such prophecies in the Bill and there have been none in the speeches that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I have made.
New clause 1 seeks to form a statutory link between the powers in the Bill and the freeing of the hostages and the discontinuance of any legal action. Of course, there are many possibilities that cannot be ruled out. I hope that none of those things happens, but all except one of the hostages could be freed, some of the hostages could be killed while others are freed, or some could be freed while others are sentenced. These are conceivable possibilities. The reaction might be different in different cases. Surely, it is better to preserve some flexibility for the Government and the House in bringing the Act to an end.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke on new clause 5, which deals with an amnesty. The Rhodesian parallel is misleading, as I have tried to indicate. The argument that the Government advanced on the Rhodesian amnesty, which the House accepted last week, was that an amnesty was needed in Zimbabwe if the different factions and parties were to live together. That was accepted. Similar considerations may well not exist when this measure comes to be wound up. We do not know the circumstances of that time. Surely, it would be rash to start taking decisions to include in or to exclude from the Bill specific provisions about an amnesty.
We do not accept the new clauses, and we hope that they will not be pressed to Divisions.

Mr. Dalyell: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I find his argument rather convincing and, in the circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. McNamara: The whole of the evening and night has been spent in examining and probing the Government's policies and attitudes in the sad affair of the Iranian hostages. Although a great deal of scepticism has been applied from the Opposition Benches towards the method that the Government are taking to try to secure the release of the hostages, it should not be thought that because we oppose the Bill there is any division in the desire to obtain the release of the unfortunate American citizens. We have been debating the wisdom of the Government's policy. We have tried to examine the way in which the Government are pursuing that policy and to indicate some of the dangers and pitfalls.
In the end, it is a matter of judgment whether this policy will succeed or whether our policy, adumbrated by the Opposition Front Bench, is sounder. Perhaps our method is more likely to achieve the release of the hostages in the long run. The Government have won the day because they have greater numbers. I am not certain that they have won the argument.
By allying ourselves to the Americans, we shall not strengthen the case for releasing the hostages. Indeed, I believe that case will be weakened. The policy may prove inimical to the ideas and aspirations of the free world. We shall lose the sympathy of the developing and uncommitted nations which supported us when Afghanistan was invaded. If we fail to take notice of the change of attitude that has taken place in the Islamic world following the abortive American attempt to release the hostages, we shall find ourselves following a course that is fraught with many dangers. There are dangers to our economy and to the safety of the world.
It would be wrong if those of us who oppose this policy did not tell the House that we are sympathetic to the hostages and wish that they had never been taken. It is horrible for anyone to be taken hostage. It is a breach of every tenet of international law and of the treatment of diplomats. The Government's course is foolish. In those circumstances, it would

be wrong not to oppose the Bill as much as possible.

Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not detain the House long. Hon. Members would not welcome a detailed review of the past few days. I agree that the Government have won the day as a result of their numbers. However, they have not won the argument. I intended to speak on Monday, but several of the speeches were so good and mentioned so many of the things that I intended to say that I chose not to speak.
I was particularly impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). He gave one of the best analyses and historical descriptions that I have ever heard. However, it is sad that I could not agree with his conclusion. It did not follow the logic of his argument.
There are two fundamental errors in the Bill. First, it is assumed that we are doing something that will affect the Government of Iran. That is a mistake. We have fallen into the trap of assuming that the Government of Iran do not wish to release the hostages. I suspect that they would do so if they were an effective Government of Iran. When I imply that they are not an effective Government, I do so for this reason: That the person who controls this matter is Ayatollah Khomeini, and I do not think that he is susceptible to rational argument on this issue at this stage. I do not think so for a number of reasons, not least—we often underestimate this—his attitude towards his religious beliefs and his feelings of nationalistic fervour for his country.
When a person is in leadership and is challenged, I can think of few things that are more likely to fail than challenges to that nationalism. I say that because one builds up one's strength on challenges to nationalism, just as this country built it up in 1940 and the Vietnamese built it up during the American bombing of the northern towns. It has the same effect. If anything, it stiffens resistance. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out on a number of occasions that the Ayatollah has said that he welcomes the hardships that will be brought to Iran in standing up for what he regards as its rights in this matter.
I think that the second fallacy is that we in some way offer support and help to the United States by giving what I would call blind support. At a time such as this, the United States needs more than anything wise, calm, cool counsel and not blind support, which I think is what we are offering it.
At the time of Suez, I remember being very despondent about what was happening to the United Kingdom by our allowing ourselves to believe that we were pursuing a course of conduct which was in our own interests when to my mind it was manifestly not in our interests. At that time the United States, quite rightly, exercised the view that we were not right in what we were doing, and it would not support us. I think that this is a similar type of situation, in which we should say to the United States "This is not in your interests. It is not in the hostages' interests. It is not in the interests of the Western world." Even less is it in the interests of the battle for democracy, because in the many countries in which democracy is being challenged it will not be won by measures of this type. If anything, we shall lose the support which, as has been said, we were beginning to gain after the Afghanistan invasion.
The United States occupies a curious position. I have said in other debates that I think that it is in trouble. It is in trouble precisely because it is losing some of the confidence that it had in the past when it was indisputably the major world Power. That is no longer so. At times such as this, nation States go through a difficult crisis of confidence, just as we did after we lost our major world role. It is almost a case of the United States having to find a role in the world different from that which it exercised immediately after the Second World War.
One of the things that has saddened me during the debates was listening to one or two hon. Members talking about the debt that we owed to the United States. It was as though this was a one-way debt, as though the debt was in some way a total commitment to the United States and that the United States might not have a debt to us. I assume that that assumption is made on the assistance that the

United States gave during the Second World War and its assistance after that war.
I am certainly not anti-American. Indeed, I have a considerable admiration for some of the things that the Americans have done both at home and abroad. But that does not make me an unqualified supporter of all that they have done. It certainly does not make me assume that we have some unpaid debt to them. It needs to be remembered that they also have a debt to us. Apart from anything else, the United States, in its origins, is an expression at least of Western Europe and primarily of Britain.
Secondly, if people are talking in this curious language of debts incurred in wartime, it needs to be remembered, and the United States needs to remember, that this country was involved in both world wars for some years before the Americans came in and there is a debt involved there, too. It was A. J. P. Taylor who pointed out that in the defeat of the Nazi regime during the Second World War the United Kingdom gave time, the United States gave resources and the Soviet Union gave lives. It is the latter, if we are to talk in terms of debt, that we need to remember and to respond to.
I believe that we are embarking on a policy which is unlikely to achieve anything other than a stiffening of the resolve in Iran to maintain opposition to any attempt at mediation. I do not pretend that the embassy incident in this country would persuade the Ayatollah Khomeini to get up in the morning and say "They are right. This is a terrible situation. If it was right for the British to release our hostages, we should release the Americans." Of course, that will not happen. But that incident gave us some long-term influence that we could have used. By passing the Bill, we are throwing away some of the good will that we might have earned.
Finally, it is relevant to turn to penalties. I suppose that I always had considerable concern about the sort of penalties that would be offered in instances such as this. We talk of this as a serious matter. Therefore, one assumes that serious penalties will be involved. As an ex-probation officer, I looked at a case recently in my constituency concerning a man who was sent to gaol for defrauding


the social security system of £112. I have a sneaking suspicion that on this issue no one will go to prison. Whatever it may be, the penalties are not spelt out in the Bill, and that is a serious failure.
I do not pretend that the prisons in Britain will be full of Iranian sanctions-busting gangsters and their molls. But, if a Bill of this nature is to be passed, at the time that it is passed the penalties should be part and parcel of it. It is unwise to pass a Bill and to imply that it covers a serious matter without specifying the penalties in it.
The House has spent a long time on the Bill. I regret its passing. It will damage our cause. I do not think that we come out from it with any great credit. However, I recognise that the Government have the numbers and the right to go ahead. I shall watch with interest to see what happens. I fear that the whole incident will not be regarded as a happy state of affairs in the history of our relations with Iran or within the Atlantic Alliance.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I crave merely 70 seconds of my hon. Friend's time at this hour in the morning, as chairman of the Anglo-Iranian group in the House, to say four things.
First, we have enabled the Government to fulfil an undertaking. The Foreign Secretary promised the other Ministers of the EEC that Britain would take a step, and the House of Commons has now enabled him to go to Naples this weekend and to deliver. That is a matter for congratulation.
Secondly, we have done well by the Americans. We were unmistakably right to stand with them on this matter. I do not disguise my serious misgivings about both the Bill and the policy, but they must be subordinated to the overriding necessity of showing our unity with the United States in its hour of need. I hope, too, that no American, after the House has taken this big step against difficulty, will fail to recognise that when they needed support we gave it and, further, that there are certain matters, such as forbearance in our problems in Northern Ireland, in which they would do well to reciprocate in the light of the action that the House has taken this day.
Thirdly, we have stood for a principle—the principle of the protection of diplomatic personnel wheresoever they be. Last week my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary stood for that principle by the use of our forces as necessary at Princes Gate. We have stood for the same principle tonight in a different way on the Bill. But we have, none the less, stood for our commitment to the integrity of diplomatic personnel.
I conclude by pointing out that it is a matter for serious consideration that an official Opposition amendment on an important aspect should have attracted only nine votes. The Opposition Front Bench should think very hard about whether it has come out of this with honour when it can muster the support of only nine hon. Members.

7 am

Mr. Dalyell: Having taken more than my share of the last 16 hours of debate, it would be curmudgeonly of me not to thank the Clerks of the House and the occupants of the Chair for their help. I also thank the two Government Ministers who have taken part. There are deep divisions of opinion between us, but I must acknowledge their courtesy and unfailing helpfulness when many Ministers in such a situation on previous occasions have been testy when provoked. There was no sign of either testiness or ill temper tonight, and for that I thank the Ministers.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). We voted in different Lobbies on the substantive issue, but he has been nothing but helpful and understanding throughout the debates. I also pay a tribute both to my own colleagues and to the Conservative Back Benchers who have stayed a long time and have shown a great deal of good humour at hours when there is often acrimony and ill temper.
However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not apologise to them, to you or to my own colleagues for the time I have taken, because in a sense this is the House of Commons doing its scrutiny job. It is the only opportunity that we had to air these differences of opinion. We would be criticised if we did not take that opportunity.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) criticised Labour Members for not being here. Many of


my colleagues had pressing, long-standing engagements—he may think for bad reasons, I may think for good ones—and I do not think that chiding them on this matter is altogether fair, especially in view of the time and agony that have been expended.
Finally, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) made a contribution earlier which I wish to take up. Some of us will not be labelled as "anti-American". This is an argument about what friends should do to each other—whether we should follow or be candid and what form the candour should take. Some of us have grave reservations about the operation of the White House machine and the position of certain high officials who, by the very nature of their jobs—not their characters—have a very exalted view of themselves. I speak as one who was indelibly marked by being summoned by Walt Rostow to his White House basement office in 1967 and lectured on east of Suez and Vietnam. This is not an occasion for delving into the problems of the United States, other than to say that the White House can be deeply wrong.
In such circumstances, what should friends do? I suggest that it was right and proper, on a subject of overwhelming importance, that I, for the first time in 17 years as a Member of Parliament, should be instrumental in keeping my colleagues up to an ungodly hour. I do not really believe that Members should be kept up, even by the Opposition, for trivial reasons, but these things that we have been discussing are far from trivial.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has carried out a remarkable task, along with other hon. Friends, in ensuring that the Bill was given a degree of scrutiny which otherwise it would not have had. That must be said in view of the extraordinary circumstances in which we have had to consider these matters.
That is my answer to the churlish comments made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) at the end of his remarks. This does not reflect on the official Opposition and the size of the votes during this debate. It reflects on the Government, who have pressed through a Bill of this nature at all hours

of the night when this legislation should have been given a great deal more time. It is a comment on the system and on the way in which the Government are using this place. Tory Oppositions used to talk of the legislative sausage machine of Labour Governments. The present Government have produced longer and more indigestible sausages than any previous Government. Therefore, I do not accept the churlish remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
I also wish to commend the courtesy of the two Ministers who have handled the proceedings on the Bill for the last 16 hours. It has contributed to the success of our debates.
I began at the opening of this debate by supporting the principle of economic pressure on Iran as part and parcel of a broader diplomatic and political process in endeavouring to achieve the release of the hostages. However, having listened to the deployment of the case on a host of amendments, I am not sure that I am now as convinced as I was about some aspects of the Bill.
I voted for the principle of sanctions and economic pressure, and I believe that that principle should be part of the total approach. We have tried to convince the Government in this debate that we do not believe that the orders that may flow from the Bill should be regarded as a major part of the initiative in seeking to free the hostages. We hope that there will now be a pause and then further diplomatic and political initiatives. We hope that the Government, in conjunction with their European partners, will not launch into hasty economic sanctions following their forthcoming meeting. Such a move could destroy the taking of other opportunities that may be open on the diplomatic and political front. That has been the whole basis of our arguments on a host of amendments. We are not quite sure that the Government have yet fully accepted the way in which we presented those arguments.
We reserve judgment on the Government's action. Before the end of the week, we shall expect a much clearer and definitive statement as to the line they intend to take at the forthcoming meeting. In the meantime, we hope and pray that the basic principles of international law can be restored. Certainly, the detention of the American hostages challenges


that principle.
It was for that reason that I supported the principle behind the Bill as part and parcel of the total pressure, but I repeat that these provisions must not be the major initiative. We wish to register that reservation. We shall watch the situation with interest and vigilance as events unfold, and we shall particularly note the Government's attitude once the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Hurd: This has been a very long but not a dull series of discussions in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Many right hon. and hon. Members have taken a distinguished part. I should like to pay a certain tribute to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has borne the main burden of the night. I thought that I detected a slight tendency to ramble at about five o'clock in the morning, but the hon. Member rallied quickly and persevered, despite the virtual disappearance of his army of support. What the hon. Member did is certainly a matter for compliment and not complaint. As a good House of Commons man, he grasped the opportunity which he saw and made good use of it. No one could blame him for that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends—whose support we greatly appreciated—have taken the same realistic view of the Bill. Of course, we would have been much happier if it had not been necessary to introduce the Bill. We shall be happy if its life is a short one. We have made no secret about that. We are satisfied that it is necessary.
This is not a matter, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), of blind support for the United States. It is a matter, to use his other phrase, of wise and cool advice, backed, as we are sure it must be, by sympathetic effort. We believe that the Bill is necessary to help to bring to an end, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out clearly, the dangerous breach of international law. We believe that it is also necessary to reinforce our diplomacy and the solidarity of our Alliance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make further provision with respect to rates and to grants for local authorities and other bodies, to amend the law relating to new towns and to provide for the establishment of corporations to regenerate urban areas, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such money under provisions of the Act requiring the Secretary of State to make grants to rating authorities by way of compensation for any revenue lost by them in consequence of the provisions of the Act relating to zones designated as enterprise zones under the Act.—[Mr. King.]

SERGEANT CLARK (ROYAL PARKS POLICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of Sergeant Clark, of the Royal Parks Police, for two reasons. Sgt. Clark is a constituent of mine and has been one since March 1968, when he was first transferred, at his request, from Victoria Lodge to the Royal park in Greenwich, where he was provided with a tied cottage, Chesterfield Lodge, which is within the precincts of the park.
I want the Minister to consider carefully the story I have to tell, as it has affected Sgt. Clark and his family, because I find that aspect of the affair disturbing enough in itself. This affair, it seems to me, has wider implications for the efficiency of the running of the hon. Gentleman's Department. It was because of my concern in this respect that I was minded to ask for this Adjournment debate.
Let me say at once that, in general, I have nothing but praise for the way in which Greenwich park is administered and cared for. In my opinion, it is the most beautiful park to be found in London. This reflects enormous credit upon the Department of the Environment and upon the superintendent and the staff of the park. We in South London are


eternally grateful for all that they do and the way in which they do it.
The story, briefly, is as follows. Sgt. Clark had no serious complaints about the maintenance of his home during his first eight years in Greenwich park. Some decoration was done and some dampness in his sitting room was cured. In 1976, he first complained about wet near the door of the main bedroom at Chesterfield Lodge. He mentioned that he was worried about whether the electric switch and wiring were likely to be rendered unsafe thereby. An electrician called and pronounced the switch and wiring properly insulated against humidity. At that stage, no inspection took place and no action was undertaken to deal with the basic trouble.
Two years later, in 1978, fungus began to appear on the landing, on the stair carpet and around the skirting. Sgt. Clark reported this and a Property Services Agency official inspected it and called in a commercial firm which specialises in these matters. It may have been Rentokil. This firm took out all the woodwork that was found to be completely rotten, took down part of the ceiling to find that dry rot had spread extensively to the timbers above, and cut back wall plaster. The whole operation made a fearful mess of Sgt. and Mrs. Clark's bedroom, and they had to sleep in a small entrance hall at the bottom of the stairs. Presumably Rentokil, or whatever the firm was, submitted a report on its investigation and possibly also an estimate of the cost of curing the trouble. Nothing has been done for two years. The walls and ceiling remain in the same state as in 1978. Can the Under-Secretary provide an explanation?
Sgt. Clark experienced considerable inconvenience and suffering. The Clarks suffered sore throats, and there is a strong suggestion that this was due to fungal material in the air. At any rate, it ceased when the staircase was boxed in. Their upstairs furniture had to be stored, though Sgt. Clark freely acknowledges his debt to the superintendent for arranging this. In the meantime, it was discovered that Mrs. Clark was suffering a terminal illness. She died on 5 May 1979. Sgt. Clark was grateful for the consideration shown him by the superintendent while

his wife was ill.
A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to rehouse the Clarks. Eventually, in April last year, a Portakabin temporary home was delivered and erected in the garden of Chesterfield Lodge. No inspection seems to have been made to see that it had been properly erected. It seems that there was a wide gap in the floorboards from end to end of the building and no circulation of air in the area underneath. The result was that carpet tiles began to come up in the sitting room. Damp and mildew has been persistent in both bedrooms, affecting clothes and personal possessions. Sgt. Clark reported this when it became apparent in February this year on two occasions, but no action was taken other than an inspection until Sgt. Clark reported that, in desperation, he had been to see his Member of Parliament.
There are two aspects that should concern the Under-Secretary. Sgt. Clark has been through two years of inconvenience and positive suffering, for which he is surely entitled to some compensation. Personal effects, including clothes, curtains, carpeting and linoleum, have deteriorated or been rendered useless. He put in a claim for these losses, but it was turned down flat on 3 March this year. His treatment compared with that given by a reasonably well-run local authority housing department in the shape of disturbance payments and the like seems to be less than fair. Sgt. Clark has been given formal notice of redundancy from 25 July this year.
As regards the wider implications, I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree that the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency ought to set the highest standards of property and estate management. It is my concern in this respect that I want to put to him. I have a number of questions. Why has nothing been done to restore Chesterfield Lodge since an inspection by an outside firm in 1978? Was it really so difficult to accommodate the Clark family elsewhere? They were allowed to view only one flat, which they declined for personal reasons.
The only person, so far as I am aware, who approached the local authority housing department was Sgt. Clark himself. A Portakabin was ordered. The cost, I am told, was £10,000. Is this the correct


figure? What is the Under-Secretary's comment on that level of expenditure? The Portakabin came with a complete set of furniture, even though Sgt. Clark had plenty of his own. Was this because the firm insisted on supplying it as part of a package deal, or did it constitute a mistake in ordering? Is it true that this furniture is now stored in a Department of the Environment store in Wembley? If so, what is to be done with it?
What was the total expenditure involved in providing Sgt. Clark with a temporary home, storing some of his furniture in Catford, supplying free Calor gas to the Portakabin and boxing in the staircase at Chesterfield Lodge? How does that compare with attending to the matter that Sgt. Clark first complained of in 1976 and getting it thoroughly rectified before it became serious?
Accepting the failure to take proper action in 1976, would it not have been more sensible to have accommodated the Clark family in a hotel as soon as reports from Rentokil, or whatever firm was involved, had been received and to have attended to the job of restoring Chesterfield Lodge there and then?
I am sorry to burden the Under-Secretary with so many questions, but I am sure that they are questions which he will want to ask if he does not know the answers. I do not expect him to provide all the answers, and I shall be content with an assurance that this whole matter will be investigated to ensure that nothing like it occurs again and that everything is done to ensure that my constituent, Sgt. Clark, leaves the employment of the Department with a sense of having been fairly and justly treated.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): An Adjournment debate at 7.30 a.m. is never a particularly attractive proposition, but I am grateful that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) has raised this matter, because it has caused me concern in the 48 hours since the story was related to me.
The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of the Environment from April 1976 to May 1979 and, therefore, will have known what was happening at that time, even though it may not have

been his responsibility. I should outline the facts of the case as I see them.
Sgt. Clark joined the service in 1952. He was promoted from park-keeper, as Royal parks constables were formerly known, to sergeant in 1967. The following year he was transferred from Kensington Gardens to Greenwich park and, because of his key staff status, he was offered official rent-free accommodation at Chesterfield Lodge. He moved in, accompanied by his wife and daughter.
Chesterfield Lodge lies in the southwest corner of Greenwich park. The park wall forms the lower part of the south wall of the building. The park wall is listed, although the house is not. The accommodation consists of two bedrooms on the upper floor and living room, dining room, kitchen, bathrom and we on the ground floor. The house was probably built in the late nineteenth century.
In 1974 a survey of the lodges in the Royal parks was carried out. Occupants were asked to complete forms listing defects. In the form completed by Sgt. Clark for Chesterfield Lodge, he listed dampness in the lower rooms, missing tiles and several other defects. The property was inspected in September 1975 by professional officers from the Property Services Agency, who did not entirely agree with Sgt. Clark's survey. Some repairs were subsequently carried out and completed in November 1975.
Various complaints were made by Sgt. Clark from January 1976 until December 1978. These included dampness in several rooms and the top of the staircase, swollen window and door frames, broken slates and fungus on landing walls. Steps were taken through normal Property Services Agency maintenance arrangements to seek to rectify these problems as they arose.
A severe outbreak of dry rot was found in Chesterfield Lodge in the autumn of 1978, and Rentokil—the hon. Gentleman was right about that—was asked to carry out a survey. It estimated the cost of remedial work at £7,000 to £8,000. That is a good reason why we thought carefully after 1978 about what steps should be taken. Work would have taken four months to complete and the Clark family would be required to vacate the lodge. In view of the considerable sums that had been spent in the past in attempting to eradicate the faults in this property,


it was felt that serious consideration would have to be given before embarking on an outlay of such magnitude.
Between late 1978 and early 1979 the Department explored several avenues in an attempt to find alternative housing for the Clark family. Mrs. Clark, who at the time was being treated for cancer, from which, sadly, she has since died, had made it clear that she did not wish to move away from the area, so the possibility of rehousing in another Royal park was not pursued. The Department sought to find accommodation for them in a Ministry of Defence married quarter. That was unsuccessful, though I should add that it had, in any case, been indicated to the Department that Mrs. Clark would not be willing to move to a married quarter.
Some years previously, Sgt. Clark had applied to be registered on the housing list of the local authority in preparation for his retirement in July 1980, so a request was made by the Department to Greenwich borough council to give urgent consideration to rehousing the family in view of Mrs. Clark's health. The local authority did not reply to this request, although I believe that there are some grounds for thinking—I am sure the local authority can confirm it—that a flat was offered to the Clarks but was refused.
At that time, too—late in 1978—consideration was also given to the possibility of offering the family hotel accommodation, but there were a number of arguments against that. The cost would have been very great for the period of time likely to be involved, Mrs. Clark's poor health would not have been helped and the family pets could not have been accommodated. The housing need was pressing as Chesterfield Lodge was hardly habitable, but it was by no means straightforward to decide on the most cost-effective solution to the problems of the building, and no quick decision could have been taken. I accept that the personal problems were substantial.
In view of the strongly expressed preference of the Clarks that they should continue to live in the same neighbourhood and the desirability of not making changes that would affect the medical treatment that Mrs. Clark was undergoing, it was decided to offer the family accommodation in a temporary prefabricated

building adjacent to Chesterfield Lodge. The Clarks agreed to that. A purpose-built two-bedroom housing unit, complete with carpets and furniture and designed to make the best use of the limited space available, was bought and erected in the garden of Chesterfield Lodge at a cost of £9,698. The operation took much longer than anticipated, due to the industrial troubles of the winter of 1978–79. Sgt. Clark moved into the new accommodation in April 1979, and he confirmed that he and his family were satisfied with the accommodation. It is, of course, tragic that Mrs. Clark died on 5 May. The Government's responsibility had begun at the beginning of May.
I should like to point out that the Department did not ignore the problems that Sgt. Clark and his family were experiencing in Chesterfield Lodge while the new building was being installed. The Department's welfare officer had been in touch with the family since October 1978. In the December he drew attention to the difficulty of keeping the lodge warm enough for Mrs. Clark and suggested that the Department might pay the cost of the Calor gas supply for the additional heater that was being used. It was agreed that that should be done, and Sgt. Clark received a total of £25 covering the period up to the family's move into the new building.
When Sgt. Clark moved into his new residence he took with him some of his own furniture, leaving the remainder in Chesterfield Lodge. Later in 1979 he complained that the furniture in the lodge was being damaged by damp, and we agreed to its being placed in store at the Department's expense. The cost of the removal was £44 and storage charges to date have amounted to £85.
Sgt. Clark has lodged a claim for £300 for damage to the furniture, which was turned down in March. This was because he claimed for "loss" but no loss had occurred, and the claim gave no details of any damage. The view was taken at the time that a claim expressed in these terms could not be allowed; but I have instructed officials to review this claim sympathetically. I suggest that the best first step would be for Sgt. Clark to resubmit it with full particulars of the damage that has been caused to his furniture, carpets and other property.
Sgt. Clark also claimed £500 from the Department for "inconvenience and suffering". I have instructed the officials concerned to review this aspect of the matter as well and to look at it sympathetically.
The temporary building has proved to have minor defects, which have been rectified as they came to light: a porch has been constructed to prevent rain penetrating the door, at an approximate cost of £200; defective flooring has been replaced at a cost of £250 to £300; and translucent sheeting is to be fixed to the porch to prevent draughts.
I should add here that following Sgt. Clark's retirement this July the temporary building will no longer be needed in the park and will, therefore, be available for other Government use.
Chesterfield Lodge was inspected in November 1979 by a DOE architect and an inspector of ancient monuments and historic buildings. In their opinion, the house is of no real architectural or historic merit. The layout of the building is such that considerable alterations are needed to meet present-day requirements. We are urgently reviewing whether the accommodation provided by Chesterfield Lodge is needed. If it is not, demolition without replacement and a return of the land to the park would be a possibility. Since the park is in a conservation area—I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the quality of the park and its excellent reputation—it will be necessary to consult the local authority before the house can be demolished, and the park
1330-1474
wall, which is listed, would need to be restored.
I hope that this account shows that the Department took a responsible attitude towards its staff, that it has shown reasonable sympathy and helpfulness towards Sgt. Clark in his very sad and difficult position, and that the expenditure incurred in providing housing for this family was not excessive.
A judgment of whether the right balance has been held between sympathy and economy must be subjective. I am sure that this has been a difficult case in which to judge both aspects, given the condition of the property concerned. I can assure the hon. Member that if the review that I have asked should be undertaken of this whole affair shows that the balance has gone wrong, I shall ask the Department to examine the application for help made by Sgt. Clark because of the condition of his property subsequent to the move, to see whether we can help with reimbursement.
The information that the hon. Gentleman has put before me has enabled me to look carefully at the administration, repair and maintenance of our property in that area, and from that will come a great deal of good.

Mr. Guy Barnett: May I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his helpful and sympathetic reply? I apologise for the fact that it has had to be given at this hour. I am most grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to eight o'clock am.